Creation or Evolution: The Statistics!!!

[Quahom1]

This thread seems to have become bogged down in semantics over speciation and I am not quite sure that I understand what the creationist argument is. The imperatives that drive evolution are always enviromental and the number of mutations limited by population density and a given species ability to adapt to changes in the enviroment. It is in the interest of any species to be able to breed with any sub-species for as long as possible as this increases its chances of successful reproduction. Without the aid of genetic manipulation through intensive breeding programs or more directly using modern gene technologies this process is slow and unobservable in a human lifetime.

As a result of reading this thread I was astounded to come across so many Creationist sites full of blatant missinterpretations of facts. From the the formation of the first building blocks of life thru to the evolution of Homo sapiens there is a plethora of statistical nonsense, unproveable speculation and outright lies. I do not for one second entertain the thought that we have a complete and incontrovertable theory of evolution but the body of empirical evidence to support most of the basic principles is compelling. For me discovering so many sites promalgating this kind of disinformation is a worry and yet more proof of the increasing secularisation in our global society into dangerously insular communities. I would have hoped that in todays age of Information we would start moving toward a more hopeful path. Instead we seem to be heading into a new Dark Age.

Reading many threads here my heart is warmed by the many people who have Spiritual values and who ooze compassion and love for humanity in thier every word. I hope for my children and my childrens children that evolution see's your like prevail.

Where is your proof? (not you personally) I would like to see hard evidence to show that evolution is in fact all there is, or that what is has at least a 50/50 chance of accuracy. So far, I'm not impressed with the evolutionists' argument over life either.

Too much psycho babble on the part of scientists, and too much hocus pocus on the far religious right.

Here is a good start: Explain why over 85% of human isn't human at all. Same goes for every other animal on earth. I mean 70% is water, 5% is bacteria, 10% is minerals, salts and other inorganics, and 15% is actual human material. That ain't much...

v/r

Q

 

[bob x]

I see, since I remarked I do not have the time to do someone else's homework, the onus falls on me.

You think the "onus" is on us to re-type the full text of a hundred journal articles so you can read them without leaving your bedroom? Aside from the copyright-law issues, why is your time so much more valuable than ours?
It is like you are disputing that Jupiter has any moons, although this question was thoroughly settled a long long time ago. You say all the astronomers are part of an evil conspiracy to deny the Bible, so all the pictures are fake. We tell you you could look through a telescope yourself, but you say a telescope is too expensive. We tell you the university runs an astronomy club that meets every Saturday, but you could not possible leave the house on Saturday because that is laundry day.

Over the last year and a half I have printed out and studied enough material to compose an encyclopedia, albeit a small one, to add to my already long interest in this subject. So I think your snide comment is a bit below the belt, don't you think?

No, I don't. There are people who dedicate their whole lives to figuring out these matters, but you denigrate their work without being willing to look at it. What you cut and paste seems to be derived mostly from people who have not done one lick of work in the field.

And to think, I'm just having a little fun!

The efforts of creationists to demonize science in the minds of youngsters is dangerously destructive. No, I do not look at this as a game.

Clausen et al. (1945) hypothesized that Madia citrigracilis was a hexaploid hybrid of M. gracilis and M. citriodora... Frandsen (1943, 1947) was able to do this same sort of recreation of species in the genus Brassica (cabbage, etc.)....
Note that this is not speciation in the sense of a new species, but in showing the relationships of existing species to each other.

It is demonstrating how the existing species evolved. Those species were "new" species, quite recently.

But there are signs of flood in places, and a littany of cultural myths regarding the matter to suggest there was some type of wide scale flood calamity that did strike very late in pre-historic or very early in historic times.

Rather, MULTIPLE flood events, in different parts of the world, in the period ~6000-4000 BC as a result of ice-sheet breakup. This is well-understood.

Whether or not this would include the Grand Canyon is open to question.

No. It is not. Abrupt floodings and gradual erosions leave quite different results. The difference is naked-eye obvious.

 

[Tao_Equus]

Where is your proof? (not you personally) I would like to see hard evidence to show that evolution is in fact all there is, or that what is has at least a 50/50 chance of accuracy. So far, I'm not impressed with the evolutionists' argument over life either.

Too much psycho babble on the part of scientists, and too much hocus pocus on the far religious right.

Here is a good start: Explain why over 85% of human isn't human at all. Same goes for every other animal on earth. I mean 70% is water, 5% is bacteria, 10% is minerals, salts and other inorganics, and 15% is actual human material. That ain't much...

v/r

Q

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Juan,

thank you for the post.

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

For a poet, this is acceptable. For scientific nomenclature, it is not.

why is this so?

What is a true Scotsman, or a true Christian?

a fallacy. why, what do you think they are?

Actually, those I could find on the 'net, I have. I haven't the time to travel 30 miles out of my way to peruse for many hours through science mags.

fair enough.

metta,

~v

 

[Quahom1]

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

Gee, sounds a bit like the fundementalists. and their way of thinking. And you fool yourself if you think there are not groups out there not intent on capturing the general concensus as to what really is...
they have all the answers (lol).

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, bobx!

You make this too easy. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

What’s the matter, did I rattle the parrot cage? Did I take out the sniper perched in the ivory tower? I live for snipe hunting…HooRah!

You think the "onus" is on us to re-type the full text of a hundred journal articles so you can read them without leaving your bedroom? Aside from the copyright-law issues, why is your time so much more valuable than ours?

Apparently you are unfamiliar with proper reference protocol. In what references of mine you can find, throughout this site, I typically take a germane quote and cite the source and usually provide a link, so the reader at least has opportunity to look at the material themselves to see if my interpretation is justifiable. Which, I might add, is perfectly within the copyright guidelines, when used for non-commercial educational purposes. So, if one must reference, it is only right and proper to allow the reader opportunity to examine the evidence for themselves, or at the very least a germane quote. The internet makes this opportunity considerably easier than sending someone on a wild goose chase. Rather it seems, correctly or not, that unverifiable references are included on the supposition that the student will acquiesce and accept the presenter at their word. I, on the other hand, do not play that game. I encourage open discussion, even disagreement, as long as the other person has a thoughtful and considerate contribution.

It is like you are disputing that Jupiter has any moons, although this question was thoroughly settled a long long time ago. You say all the astronomers are part of an evil conspiracy to deny the Bible, so all the pictures are fake. We tell you you could look through a telescope yourself, but you say a telescope is too expensive. We tell you the university runs an astronomy club that meets every Saturday, but you could not possible leave the house on Saturday because that is laundry day.

Or maybe that you still think the earth is flat, and I am trying to convince you it might actually be round?

Yours is a rather bold faced accusation, don’t you think? Show me, anyplace on this site, where your implied accusation is correct. All of my 1200+ posts here are readily accessible, I use no second avatar here. So please show me where this is so. In fact, I will point you to several treasure troves: the Evolution Conflict, Morality in Evolution, and (the earth was of ?) One Language threads, on the Belief and Spirituality forum and the Philosophy forum. There are many more, but these are the most concentrated sources of references I have made on this site. Just for fun, you might try the “juantoo3 quote from prove God’s non-existence” or Religion as a Meme threads, I had a blast with those two.

I have at no time claimed Creationism since I have been here. So, frankly, my views on God and the Bible are not even germane to this subject. Do YOUR homework. Quite the contrary sir, I have long called science “just another” religion here, implying that the scientific method is but another meme. Thank you for playing, you proved my point so very well, to me if not others.

There are people who dedicate their whole lives to figuring out these matters, but you denigrate their work without being willing to look at it. What you cut and paste seems to be derived mostly from people who have not done one lick of work in the field.emphasis mine

Oh, really?

To recap this thread alone, counting this post I have posted 25 times since engaging you. Of that 25, I have referenced you 5 times, for a total of 20%. Does that make you 20% liable towards “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I have also referenced quotes from the very same reference you did, TalkOrigins, twice. Are they too “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I have also referenced Glen Morton in passing, is he to be included in “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?” I also pulled a quote from one of the few references on Vaj’s list I could confirm, (that agreed with you!), is it to be considered among the “people who have not done one lick of work in the field?”

If you count “cut and paste” of people like yourself, then I suppose “people who have not done one lick of work in the field” is true. I invite you to examine any and all of my references on this site, and find just one that fits what you describe here. I lay down only two exceptions; quotes of other people (who may be quoting from sites as you suggest, and to which I am replying), and the handful of references I made on the Evolution Conflict thread somewhere in the middle to Carl Baugh’s foundation (a naïve mistake I made with another contributor). If you can find one reference outside of these only two exceptions anywhere on this site, I will be happy to rescind what I am about to say:

You are full of fertilizer.

Let’s see…false accusations in an effort to silence heresy, hmm. Sound familiar anyone?

Sounds to me like a witch burning in the making, with me as the roast du jour. Put on a white robe and a pointed hat and play Grand Inquisitor!

Come on in to the heretical fire, it’s nice this time of year! Come on over to the dark side, bob…

The efforts of creationists to demonize science in the minds of youngsters is dangerously destructive. No, I do not look at this as a game.

Good. I don’t look at belittling my friends as fun and games either. You are welcome to disagree with them anytime, day or night, as long as it is respectful and polite. But mount a high horse and look down your nose with a “holier than thou” attitude, and I don’t take it too kindly. If you must be condescending, at least do it with someone who has a fighting chance, like me.

Don’t pick on my friends.

Now, having said all of this, I really do enjoy your posts when you keep your holier than thou attitude in check. I find your posts, for the most part, thoughtful and thorough. You do make an important contribution to an overall and balanced look at matters when in combination with others. The scientific viewpoint is an important one and not to be dismissed lightly. It is only one perspective, by no means a complete and thorough one, but one well worth balancing with other perspectives.

*Lunamoth is correct, and it is time to let this thread cool. I have made both of my points.

While my conduct over the last few posts is unbecoming, I feel I was only giving back what was dished out. This does not excuse my actions, but I will not stand by and have someone trash my friends when I can do something about it. I do not wish to encourage the type of behavior I have displayed here recently. The purpose of this site is respectful and polite dialogue, *especially when there is disagreement.* I expect that of everybody. Otherwise CR will just turn into another trash talk site, and I think we all know we collectively are better than that. We have a genuine pearl here before us, there is no need for us to cast it to the swine.

Shalom

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

a fallacy. why, what do you think they are?

Thank you. You have answered my question.

 

[Quahom1]

When you look at a house do you call it a house or a collection of bricks, timber, gypsum and metals?

I doubt there is an evolutionary scientist anywhere, (at least not one without some other agenda), who would state that evolution theory is a complete and comprehensive picture of reality. Rather its a work in progress. There are many areas of research into evolution with countless 1000's of verifiable , peer reviewed and repeatable experiments carried out by people with no agenda other than pure research. To dismiss that so glibly smacks to me not so much as 'do not believe' as 'will not believe'.

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...

You still haven't answered my question...

v/r

Q

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...

You still haven't answered my question...

v/r

Q

Lol......I did answer your question and to my mind with some precision. Maybe you need to go back to it and piece it together brick by brick

 

[Quahom1]

Lol......I did answer your question and to my mind with some precision. Maybe you need to go back to it and piece it together brick by brick

Yes, perhaps that is correct...engineers can be so stupid sometimes...

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste juan,

thank you for the post.

Thank you. You have answered my question.

hmm...

you said:

Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.

so...

what question did i answer? as far as i can tell, that ball is still in your court, sir

metta,

~v

 

[Tao_Equus]

Yep, and that is the difference between science and scripture. One is a work in progress, and the other is set in stone...



v/r

Q

Water, the primary building block of life on Earth and without which its evolution would never have started, drips drop by drop on a huge stone edifice, a mountain if you like. Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing. But all is not lost, to the contrary, each and every particle has moved on, has found some new niche to fill. Something set in stone is not imune from change indeed change itself is the only imutable. Evolution is how life has adapted to harness this imutable change and it will still be doing so long after any mountain we see today is but dust carried to the four corners.

 

[presser_kun]

Very interesting concept, though not a new one, that belief in God is subject to erosion.

Science readily admits the possibility of theory being overturned, but religionists do not. That's one of the principal reasons for the Great Conflict between science and religion, I think.

Don't want to wander from the topic of evolution, though, so here's how I think this relates.

Everything, the theory of evolution, and the theory of god, is subject to change. And change they will, like or not.

Which one is true, whatever that means? Perhaps both. "True" means, for me, "fits the facts." Nothing, IMHO, can be true if it doesn't. Science itself exists because inquisitive humans one day turned over a rock and saw something that couldn't be explained by the theory of god.

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong, but I think they do that because they are afraid that their world will be rocked if they admit to the possibility that the theory of god may not be the best way of understanding the facts we see around us. Facts, of course, are the things that are so obviously true no sane person would question them (except for the philosophers), such as dust is dry, water's wet, the sun shines, etc.

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.

I'm new to this thread, and spot-checked earlier posts. Lunamoth said that, perhaps, to say one believes in evolution isn't the right way of saying what is meant: that one assents to the theory of evolution.

I've said "theory of god" here several times. Does it bother anyone? Is that because it's not allowed to consider existence of an all-powerful, omniscient being a theory? Wonder why it's not allowed?

If we could see that it is, indeed, just a theory, albeit a time-honored and cherished one, then perhaps we'd be able to sort through these troublesome issues without quite so much anxiousness and antagonism.

My two cents' worth.

peace, all

presser_kun

 

[Tao_Equus]

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.



presser_kun

I enjoyed your 2 cents worth.


I think its wrong to say scientists or those interested in science worship it. No doubt there are some who do but for most I have met, and myself, the boundary between worship and passionate interest are pretty clear. Sometimes I wonder if some of those with deeply held religeous convictions confuse someone who is interested in the sciences with Scientologists. Science to me is not a religeon its a method of study.

2nd point is conciousness is not unique to humanity, only the language skills to ponder over it at such great length are. And if conciousness is not an evolutionary developed tool to aid survival I will eat my hat Just imagine what it means to not be concious, how would any organism be able to purposefully move in 3 dimensions within its enviroment without it? Nothing beyond a jellyfish could have evolved without it. Conciousness however does not imply self-awareness and it is this capacity that truly allows man to contemplate his existance. But even here Mankind does not seem to be alone. There are a small number of species, mostly mamals but not exclusively so, in which self-awareness seems to be apparent during behavioural experiments. A good non-mamal example is N'kisi the african grey parrot who within his 950+ word vocabulary clearly shows he has his own emotional and asthetic values.http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/330feature1.shtml
Bonobos and chimpanze are far more capable than even this.
So I would argue that neither conciousness nor self-awareness are faculties given to Man by God. They are evolutionary tools we developed because the gave us some advantage. I still believe there is some Grand Design at work but I cannot sustain the notion that it is as anthropocentric as the majority of religeons imply or state. And evolution theory, and all the sciences, are not a God or a religeon but merely a logical way to explore and seek out the answers to the Big Question. Not in the works of mans hand but in the multiverse itself.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Vaj!

you said:

Those references that could be verified in all but possibly one instance prove my point, sub-speciation, * not * true speciation.

so...what question did i answer?

The question was not asked aloud for others to hear, although one can piece the conversation back well enough to decipher for themselves if they wish. As for me, I will not spell it out for anybody else just now, and likely never.

as far as i can tell, that ball is still in your court, sir

Very well, if the ball is now in my court, then I make the conscious decision to foul out. Your score.

My beef with bob never did have anything to do with ideology. My beef was always, from the beginning, about attitude. Let me say this again so there is no uncertainty by anyone: This was never about what bob believes, my beef was with the attitude in which his belief is presented.

If you feel it is now time to humiliate me in retaliation or some such, then please go ahead and just get it over with. I have chinks in my armour, they are easy enough to find. bob has chinks in his armour too, he just doesn't believe they exist.

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, Tao_Equus!

I like your post here about water and stone.

Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing.

In relating this with what Q and you had to say about (science) being "a work in progress," and (religion) written "in stone," a thought occured to me that humans do not live for millenia. I believe the current estimate for what we now consider modern humanity does not reach back much beyond 200 millenia, a far cry from countless. I agree, over time, water does wear on stone, and the effects of erosion are evident. Perhaps, in some similar way, those laws we call religion that are "set in stone" are eroding, as you allude. (I might add, I like this allusion) Yet, by the time those laws are eroded into anything that significantly loses its value to humanity, we are no longer human, and no longer need those laws "written in stone" anyway...

In other words, they are plenty "solid" for their intended time and purpose, even if in the final analysis they end up not actually being "eternal."

Just a thought, maybe not even a good one.

 

[Quahom1]

Water, the primary building block of life on Earth and without which its evolution would never have started, drips drop by drop on a huge stone edifice, a mountain if you like. Eventualy over time, over countless millenia this once massive and immovable stone is reduced to dust. Where once there was something hard and unshakeable there is nothing. But all is not lost, to the contrary, each and every particle has moved on, has found some new niche to fill. Something set in stone is not imune from change indeed change itself is the only imutable. Evolution is how life has adapted to harness this imutable change and it will still be doing so long after any mountain we see today is but dust carried to the four corners.

It was once said that life could not begin without oxygen either...and we now know that is horse pucky.

 

[Quahom1]

It was once said that life could not begin without oxygen either...and we now know that is horse pucky.

I know for fact that I can cut through stone with water @ 25,000 PSI, instead of having to use a torch to melt it. I could cut a grand canyon in less than 100 years, if if had the equipment to do it (based on today's technology). As we have seen over the past few weeks in the South East US and the Islands, technology is not required to change the face of the earth in relatively short order.

v/r

Q

 

[juantoo3]

Kindest Regards, presser_kun!

Haven't seen you around a whole lot lately...partly my fault, I've been kinda in and out on an irregular basis lately myself.

Science readily admits the possibility of theory being overturned, but religionists do not. That's one of the principal reasons for the Great Conflict between science and religion, I think.

I like this, but I think I would word it somewhat differently if I had said it. I think that doctrinally I agree with you that science does "readily" admit the possibility of theory being overturned, but as we just saw demonstrated, dogmatically it has always been an uphill battle against the powers that be. Thomas Kuhn went into this in depth in describing what he called scientific paradigms...I don't recall the name of his book right off (something about scientific revolutions, it has been awhile since I read it). And obviously, he didn't use the terms I do about doctrine and dogma. Just because science admits "possibility," doesn't mean they make it easy at all.

And to some extent this is correct and to be expected.

But there is also a political / power element attached. Human egos...what can I say?

Everything, the theory of evolution, and the theory of god, is subject to change. And change they will, like or not.

Oh absolutely, I agree.

Which one is true, whatever that means? Perhaps both.

I agree here too.

"True" means, for me, "fits the facts."

Hallelujah! Now you're preachin' to the choir!

Nothing, IMHO, can be true if it doesn't. Science itself exists because inquisitive humans one day turned over a rock and saw something that couldn't be explained by the theory of god.

Well, yes and no. Even if one chose to chase the history of science back through alchemy into the earilest history, it was about attempting to understand, and manipulate natural forces. One aspect of humanity is that we have for a very long time worshipped those forces that we had no other name for, as God (s), depending on culture. Prehistoric humanity was already religious in the stone age. Perhaps not like churches and citadels and temples; religion at that time was much more personal. Related to but not quite what we might call superstition today. The closest thing to institutional religion would have been the shaman at that time. So "theory of God" has been around for a very long time, and quite sufficient to explain by far the vast majority of life for most of that time.

If anything, I would think that science was born as alchemy when the first human decided he would play "God." That sounds much ruder that it is meant, but kept in the confines of this specific discussion, it fits.

Some say that the science worshippers are wrong, but I think they do that because they are afraid that their world will be rocked if they admit to the possibility that the theory of god may not be the best way of understanding the facts we see around us. Facts, of course, are the things that are so obviously true no sane person would question them (except for the philosophers), such as dust is dry, water's wet, the sun shines, etc.

I see your point, does it surprise you if I agree?

As Brian says, some of the things we see in life -- some of the facts -- are not explained by the theory of evolution. Consciousness, for one. So maybe the theory of god has some good points to make, too.

So that I am also in agreement with the follow on. Science plays an important role, but that role is not sufficient to meet the psychological needs of the average person. Let alone explain the extraordinary occurances that happen every so often in most of our lives.

By the same token, it i stoo easy to just say "God does it" or "God made it" or whatever as some form of explanation. That is no explanation, it is the old motherly "brush off" (I say that with greatest love and respect for the mothers out there). But it is true. It is not an explanation, it is a way to silence challenge. Especially a challenge to authority. "How dare you challenge God!" I'm not challenging God, I'm trying to understand Him. Besides, what on earth makes you qualified to speak on behalf of God?

I don't do authority well...

I've said "theory of god" here several times. Does it bother anyone? Is that because it's not allowed to consider existence of an all-powerful, omniscient being a theory? Wonder why it's not allowed?

Why should it? It certainly doesn't bother me. I've called it "God concept" before, and still got a frosty reception from the atheists and non-theists. Sometimes there's just no winning...

If we could see that it is, indeed, just a theory, albeit a time-honored and cherished one, then perhaps we'd be able to sort through these troublesome issues without quite so much anxiousness and antagonism.

Well, there's one crucial bit of evidence lacking in this brief here, that is how this "God theory" became so all-pervasive, across all cultures, across all environs, dating well into pre-historic times, if it is "just" a theory. In other words, *there had to be something there* that "everybody" was attempting to describe. What exactly that was I do not know and cannot guess, there may no longer be evidence. But there most assuredly was something, something BIG.

Properly used, theory in my mind holds a great deal of weight. But the term does get abused sometimes, and as a result some people have a less than favorable view of the term. In my mind, to be properly a theory, it must always be consistent. Its language and jargon must be specific and consistent. That is how it can be used for prediction, and held subject to experiment. I'll stay with "concept," but I think we're saying much the same thing.

Thanks for your post!

 

[juantoo3]

Regards again, T_E!

I think its wrong to say scientists or those interested in science worship it. No doubt there are some who do but for most I have met, and myself, the boundary between worship and passionate interest are pretty clear.

It really is too bad that we typically gauge a barrel of apples by the one or two rotten ones found on top.

Of course, the same can just as easily be said in reverse, those who represent science typically paint a religious person with a single color too.

Sometimes I wonder if some of those with deeply held religeous convictions confuse someone who is interested in the sciences with Scientologists.

I am certain it happens. My own brother pulled that stunt on me just a couple of weeks ago.

If a person thinks through things on their own instead of listening to BS, and pulling from an assortment of *knowledgeable* sources so they can get a more rounded view, I think they tend to do pretty good in figuring things out for themselves.

Science to me is not a religeon its a method of study.

OK. But I see religion in the personal sense as a method of study as well, so once again science and religion are the same, at least in very many respects. Enough alike that the scientific method can rightly be called "just another" meme.

2nd point is conciousness is not unique to humanity, only the language skills to ponder over it at such great length are. And if conciousness is not an evolutionary developed tool to aid survival I will eat my hat Just imagine what it means to not be concious, how would any organism be able to purposefully move in 3 dimensions within its enviroment without it? Nothing beyond a jellyfish could have evolved without it. Conciousness however does not imply self-awareness and it is this capacity that truly allows man to contemplate his existance. But even here Mankind does not seem to be alone. There are a small number of species, mostly mamals but not exclusively so, in which self-awareness seems to be apparent during behavioural experiments. A good non-mamal example is N'kisi the african grey parrot who within his 950+ word vocabulary clearly shows he has his own emotional and asthetic values.http://www.bbc.co.uk/nature/animals/features/330feature1.shtml
Bonobos and chimpanze are far more capable than even this.
So I would argue that neither conciousness nor self-awareness are faculties given to Man by God. They are evolutionary tools we developed because the gave us some advantage. I still believe there is some Grand Design at work but I cannot sustain the notion that it is as anthropocentric as the majority of religeons imply or state. And evolution theory, and all the sciences, are not a God or a religeon but merely a logical way to explore and seek out the answers to the Big Question. Not in the works of mans hand but in the multiverse itself.

I very much enjoyed the links you provided here. I read most and printed quite a bit of related material to go through, hopefully soon. I knew of some work being done with parrots and porpoises, but hadn't looked deeply into it yet. I spent more effort looking into Koko the Gorilla and Dr. Penny Patterson. Frankly, in that instance (over three "conversational" transcripts) I saw no evidence of "future" thinking. This you presented with the parrot gives me pause, I am impressed. Not quite sure I see "future" thinking, but I do see a great deal of analysis, the kind of learning not generally associated at this high of a level with animals. It will be interseting to see where this parrot is in five, ten and twenty years. What I predict, to my chagrine, is that he will soon peter out and level off. So far, there seems to be a boundary that animals do not cross. Right about the level of a four or five year old human. This parrot is pushing four, both in age and intellect.

Very impressive. Thanks for sharing it.