Quote (Bazi @ Nov 12 2014 08:41am)
I think you two are arguing over semantics at this point. His point is that humans are dominant species of this planet, but he's using the wrong words to illustrate his point. The planet's most dominant species is not interchangeable with the most evolved species.
His point in OP is still valid and strong. We are a product of countless generations of reproduction. If the dinosaurs were not wiped out there is every possibility they could be the dominant species on the planet today. As intellectual as we have become, should we leave the fate of our species to chance? With an alarming number of countries in the world possessing nuclear weaponry, it does not take a farfetched imagination to think of the worst case outcome.
Would it not be wise to have humans expand their genes to other locations for self-preservation?
I agree with you. However, I said we are the most evolved because intelligence is the equivalent of active evolution.
For example, when you are in a climate too cold for survival, you put on a jacket. If you are in a climate too hot for survival, you turn on the a/c.
Our technology is merely a product of our minds which easily adapt to change in real time. It does not take millions of years. And thus, it is a revolutionary development.
This post was edited by PixileDust on Nov 14 2014 06:01pm