There is scientific evidence that indicates that evolution has both, direction, and purpose, (other than simply survival), and that goal is “absolute symmetry”:

There are other scientists, like James Kay, Eric Schneider, Dorion Sagan (Carl’s son), Scott Sampson, who have found a local piece to this puzzle, but they fail to consider that we also *directly* affect the symmetery of the universe.

This is just a popularization, and it’s a little warped, but you’ll get the LOCAL idea from this:

http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/edit/archives/2004/09/30/2003204990

I don’t.

then consider this. We are but one species out of thousands, if not millions, on a single small planet, orbiting a single star among myriad other stars in a single galaxy within an enormous cluster or galaxies, within an even greater expanse of space peppered with yet more galaxies, and we exist at a point where we can ponder such questions 13,700,000,000 earth years beyond a time before which there was no space or time. If turns out that the universe has been or is littered with other sentient lifeforms, which it possibly may not be, then we are neither unique nor particular special.

Right, and the Goldilocks Enigma speaks to this and makes predictions about the *preferred region of the universe* where we can expect to find life elsewhere in the universe, which is why Richard Dawkins said that.

Further to my comment about chimps, I wasn’t trying to imply that they had any greater intelligence or skills, but the genomic analyses show that they have moved further along the evolutionary branch than humans –

I understand, and have read the recent reports. Regardless, I don’t consider humans nor chimps to be any more special than any other member of the ecobalance that we *contributing members* arose from and *belong to*.

Whoops, I forgot this link to very relevant information about “The Goldilocks Enigma”

http://evolutionarydesign.blogspot.com/2007/02/goldilocks-enigma-again.html

Further to my comment about chimps, I wasn’t trying to imply that they had any greater intelligence or skills, but the genomic analyses show that they have moved further along the evolutionary branch than humans – http://www.ns.umich.edu/htdocs/releases/story.php?id=5808

You don’t???… Did you read what I wrote, because it sure looks like a good reason to do so, if you ask me. Wait, let me go back and read it again… … … … Nope, it still looks like a good reason, unless you simply dont.want.to.hear.it.

what makes us so special? new evidence suggests that chimpanzees are more highly evolved than humans and so further down the evolutionary path from our common ancestor than we are.

Sure they are, and the moon is just as obviously made of Green cheese, but chimps aren’t ***specialized*** (not special), at making matter/antimatter particle pairs, which enables the asymmetrical thermodynamic process that causes the universe to evolve, whrereas, we… do… So we can argue the physics until nobody here knows enough about it to judge its validity, or you can just admit that the prediction *necessarily* and **self-evidentally** falls from any true strong anthropic cosmological principle, so you don’t *KNOW* a damned thing for certain, until we have a proven ToE… or MAYBE a valid proven theory of quantum gravity.

“god” forbid that the universe be Darwinian… that would just kill neodarwinians!

In this case, absolute symmetry is the unattainable “goal” of evoltion.

This matter is not settled without a true theory of everything, so don’t pretend that it is.

I’m just saying that if people think that the outcome of evolution is cruel, then it is. That is all that is required to define it as cruel. Now, that may not mean much (then again it may mean quite alot), but it doesn’t mean nothing (sorry for the double-negative).

I assume that you and all others reading this forum have human minds, and last time I checked so did I ;) Therefore, within the context of this forum, I don’t think it all out of place to say that evolution is cruel. I don’t intend to argue with evolution itself that it is cruel, and I don’t mean to say that evolution intends to be cruel, or intends to be anything. I merely say (to the human population) that evolution causes suffering (as do many things). Now, some may disagree with me on that, but they must then show that evolution does not cause suffering. It is not enough to simply say that evolution didn’t mean to, because that’s not what I’m asserting.

As to the cat analogy, I too have a cat, and often I think she is cruel to me. However, though I do believe she has emotions of some sort, I do not believe that she understand others emotions enough to have a concept of cruelty (though I would call her behaviour cruel). I think she can be sad, happy, distressed, scared, playful, expectant, in pain, and many more – but I don’t think she would know when others feel these emotions. That’s why when she tries to eat my foot, saying “Ouch” doesn’t really do much – she doesn’t know that she’s hurting me. However, if I turn it around and make her feel something (a firm thump on the nose, a squirt of water, etc), she responds.