I think you're making my point, here.
then you are not comprehending what i'm telling you.
What other scales matter? Humans are the superior species, so isn't that what we compare all else?
once again, based on what measure? ability create a tool? ability to ponder one's own existence? self awareness? ability to manipulate the world around them? ability to add 2+2?
side point: i say i'm smarter than you, thus i'll make up my own test and you'll be judged by it.
either you get the point or you don't.
The animal kingdom is vast with diversity, yet only one species has evolved from its earliest forms (fish, amoebas if you'd like to go further) to our present state.
what? by "our present state" you're referring to this special lucky state you think we attained, i take it? is the implication, then that - in a world based on evolution being true - all animals would ultimately end up at the intelligent state we are at now? please tell me that's not where you're going with that.
How could one species change so rapidly yet others not keep up?
this question highlights your ignorance on the topic. rate of evolution is not linear even within the same species, let alone across a range of species, and especially not over time. it's not a race and there is no linear string of development or adapations. there is no "goal" and we are certainly not the pinnacle of life. our state as the intelligent, self-aware organisms we are arose out of defined process of evolution whereby traits indicating intelligence were selected for by our environment.
Why is it then that humans can, through physical and mental capacity, adapt to 99% of all environments on this planet yet all others cannot?
once again, you're highlighting ignorance. we do not actively ADAPT to different environments. we use tools and cognitive ability to create circumstances and manipulate our surroundings which allows us to survive in extreme environments. just as for example primates and birds (
Tool Use in Birds) use tools to succeed in their environments.
this question shows a clear misunderstanding of even just the word adaption, which is a very fundamental part of evolution. if you're unable to see the difference between what real adaption is and what you proposed - and why it's so fucking wrong - i'm not really sure what to say. This is basic level shit.
Why have we been given the ability
emphasis mine. this should go without saying but your true intentions show through with this question. you've already decided what *is* and the answers i may or may not continue to provide will not affect that judgement. nevermind that you or the rest of those who believe we've been "given" anything have yet to put forth valid science-based arguments in favor of their ideas. rather it's been baseless proposals thrown in with elementary questions about evolution which they're hoping will reveal an A HA moment exposing the massive holes in evolution.
do yourself a favor and watch the video above.
yet every other species on earth is severely behind?
once again, you're failing to draw the distinction between abstract human ideas of "better" or "smarter" and fit or unfit. every other species on this planet is FIT for its respective environment or it will die or adaption and speciation will take place. there is no "ahead" or "behind".
