There is no proof, yet it is one of the most commonly accepted idea's. spontanious generation doesn't exist, and even Gregor Mendel and his study on inheritance. Nothing NEW gets created: everything is alreay there, but changes over time. not new species, but new sub-species within one species without proof? or does someone has proof? \nCould someone explain why they believe in 'the fact' that they came from a rock, or a puddle of bacteria...
137882
Actually it makes perfect sense.  Things naturally pair together, whether it be by gravity, magnetism, parasitism or whatever reason.  eventually enough atoms will link together for convienience to form a protein, enough protiens will link together to form a cell, then we have life.  cells will then pair together to form tissues, which will pair with other tissues to increase their survival rate giving us more complex organisms.  See the steps yet?  Following that we get to higher functioning organisms.  An organism's cells reproduce millions of times in that organisms lifetime and every time the DNA is replicated there is a chance for a mistake.  How many typos do you make typing a paper?  This is where variation comes from.  Evolution and extinction come from natural selection.  As the world changes things have to adapt those that don't die. If they didn't die we wouldn't call it evolution.
87668
I myself beleive in evolution, I despise the theory of Intelligent Design and I laugh at creationism however I also believe that everyone has a right to their opinion so here are some of the "proofs" you are looking for. \n\nScience Itself Refutes Darwinism \n   \n• "From goo to you by way of the zoo." - Frank Peretti6\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.51\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.51\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute, 196663\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."50\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.51\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened:  \n  • Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n  • Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n  • Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb.51 \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures.51 \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.51\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.6\n\n• Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n• The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\n\n• Living "Fossils"\n\n• The Cambrian Explosion\n\n• New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\n\n• "Missing Links"\n\n• There are many creatures that defy evolution. All of the examples below illustrate complex and sophisticated biological structures. It is difficult to believe that these creatures could have evolved, since all of their systems had to have been in place at the start for them to survive.   Angler Fish Chicken Egg \n  Beaver Giraffe \n  Black And Yellow Garden Spider Incubator Bird \n  Bombardier Beetle
313792
Seriously, it's a nice question.\n\nUnfortunately, any worthwhile answer to the details you’ve provided is beyond the scope of Yahoo Answers. You’d do better scouring the web for books on the topic from both perspectives and/or joint perspectives, if you really want to understand what both sides and not just one believes and why.\n\nHowever, I can address your literal question, which is, “Why don’t people ‘get’ this?”\n\nOne of the arguments for why many people “don’t understand” the points you’re contributing is because there has been SUCH an extensive, detailed discourse over the validity of evolution for more than a century, there’s no way to stay abreast of every development and every argument (pro and con) unless one is either working professionally in the field or is committed to the subject as a full-time hobby.\n\n(I’ve dabbled in it on and off over twenty years myself -- just enough to know what it would cost me to really get my hands dirty and be able to rationally debate for either side. And even being the philosophy and knowledge junkie I am, I just have far too many other things on my plate.)\n\nAlong with the breadth of information that must be consumed by the average person is the degree of critical thinking skills needed to weigh such extensive and detailed arguments/evidence for each position, as well as determine which authorities are actually trustworthy and which are not. That’s another full-time job in itself – besides the fact that many people simply aren’t “wired” for that level of analysis.\n\nRealistically, I would NOT expect many people to be well-versed on the geological data regarding evolution, understand the biological and ecological impact, explore all the contexts for how things might most logically fit together, and so forth. The topic is simply far too time- and resource-intensive. \n\nCoupled with this is that your argument seems not to be concerned in the least with the question of “Why?” \n\nWhy are we here? What makes humans different, if we are? And how does this impact us personally in our day-to-day lives? To many people, the evolutionary debate is irrelevant to the daily demands of life and what they want to get out of it. \n\nEvolutionary theory has nothing to do with who they love, what they sacrifice for, who they care about, what they are willing to dedicate their energy to. It doesn’t help them figure out who to marry, or how to pay their bills, or how to help their kids back on a good track, or decide what car to buy. It doesn’t give them any sort of reason for them personally to live.\n\nIn fact, it rather runs counter to all that. If your supposition is completely true, then no inherent purpose to life exists, we’re all just animals cursed by the cosmos with irrelevant self-awareness, and death is the end. Yet most people want to live, and live meaningfully.\n\nThe narrative they want to create of their lives is actually the OPPOSITE of the narrative of evolution, which (to me and others) necessarily devalues human existence.\n\nWe can argue about whether your theoretical narrative is factually true or not (and people of course have been doing so for years); but in the meanwhile, the evolutionary narrative has no value to the majority of people out there, and it even undermines the meaning they believe exists inherently in their lives.\n\nSo I wouldn’t broadly call most people ignorant of evolution, as much as I’d call the details of evolution irrelevant to most people.\n\n(And if evolution's true as you've laid it out, why does it even matter that most people understand it anyway? Their understanding or lack of it has no lasting ramifications.)
229060
Excellent post.\n\nI get quite tired of the strawman versions of evolution and the scientific method trotted out by creationists.\n\nFor example, the big bang has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.  \n\nWhere the first life form came from has nothing to do with evolution.  Zero.\n\nA theory is simply the best explanation for observable data.  We witness the diversity of life around us, and we must explain it somehow.  It is NOT meant to be proven.  Theories, in general, are not intended to be proven.\n\nFor example, gravity is a theory.  Is gravity false?  No.  Does gravity follow certain rules?  Absolutely!  Yet it is still a theory, and there ain't nothing wrong with that.\n\nYou well noted that some mechanisms of evolution are still not completely understood.  The theory, while perfectly valid, is not completely explained (just like gravity).  However, what creationists must keep in mind is that if any theory is going to replace evolution, it must explain ALL the evidence and data we have collected.  Genetics, fossil record, geological record, geographic isolation and allele frequency shift.\n\nAt the very best creationism (or ID) only points at the parts that science has not explained.  It offers no real alternative theory.\n\nLastly, the idea of "proof" for a "miracle" (meaning God's flooding of the earth) is oxymoronic, at best.  If there is proof (meaning observational data we can see today) then there is a natural explanation and God had nothing to do with it.  If it was a miracle, then there would be no evidence (since God suspended natural laws to make it happen).  Silly Christian fundamentalists, they want to have their cake and eat it too.
146367
don't even get me started! already the religious folk are posting, don't rock their faith or they'll burn your house down for pointing out the obvious.  Evolution is just a theory, one of the best so far, the theory itself will evolve (proof in the pudding?) until the answer becomes clear.  At least scientists attempt to provide answers, make us think and progress as a species, no religion has ever done anything but stagnate a population, we are still too young as a species, too many of us are bought up in house of racist, superioristic (a word?) and thoroughly backward teachings, it's like a virus handed down from generation to generation.  Pity, we could be so much more, and we will be, but it takes millenia to evolve.
151113
Darwin's theory of evolution hasn't been proven, in fact most evidence proves otherwise. A lot of scientists don't believe in evolution. There is no more evidence to support Darwin's theory of evolution today than there was when Darwin came up with the theory. I don't see how anyone could believe in evolution because there isn't enough evidence to support it. Science itself refutes Darwinism.\n\n• According to the theory of evolution, at some time in the distant past there was no life in the universe -- just elements and chemical compounds. Somehow, these chemicals combined and came to life.\n\n• However, scientists don't really know how life came to be. Even Stanley Miller, whose experiments are cited in most biology text books, says that the origin of life is still unknown. The idea that dead material can come to life all by itself is not consistent with scientific observation.\n\n• The leading mathematicians in the century met with some evolutionary biologists and confronted them with the fact that, according to mathematical statistics, the probabilities for a cell or a protein molecule coming into existence were nil. They even constructed a model on a large computer and tried to figure out the possibilities of such a cell ever happening. The result was zero possibility! - Wistar Institute\n\n• Professor Edwin Conklin observed, "The probability of life originating from accident is comparable to the probability of the Unabridged Dictionary resulting from an explosion in a printing shop."\n\n• Under normal circumstances, creatures give birth to the same kind of creatures. It is established scientific fact that like begets like. On rare instances, the DNA in an embryo is damaged, resulting in a mutant child that differs in some respect from its parent. Although a few mutations have been scientifically observed that are beneficial, most mutations produce inferior offspring. For the theory of evolution to be true, there must be a fantastic number of creative mutations that produce new kinds of offspring which are better suited for survival, and therefore are favored by natural selection.\n\n• Darwinists claim that the reptile-to-mammal evolution is well documented. But for reptiles to evolve into mammals at least some of these transformations must have happened: \n• Scales had to have mutated into hair. \n• Breasts had to have evolved from nothing. \n• Externally laid eggs had to evolve into soft-shelled eggs that were nourished by an umbilical cord and placenta in a womb. \n\n• It has never been observed in any laboratory that mutations can cause one species to turn into another. Despite this, evolutionists believe that given enough time, some animals will eventually evolve into other creatures. \n\n• Evolutionists claim that although we have not actually observed these things happening, that does not mean that they are impossible. They say it simply means they are extremely improbable. Evolutionists think the world has been around long enough for all these highly improbable things to happen.\n\n• Sir Fred Hoyle, of Cambridge University stated that statistically the chances of one cell evolving was the same as a tornado passing through a junkyard and giving you a fully functional Boeing 747.\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/arguments.shtml\n\n* Scientific evidence casts serious doubts on the theory of evolution, for example:\n\n* The Fossil Record (Updated 3 July, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/fossil.htm\n\n* Living "Fossils"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/living.htm\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/explosion.htm\n\n* New T.Rex Discoveries (Updated 10 June, 2005)\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/t-rex.htm\n\n* "Missing Links"\nhttp://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/misslinks.htm \n\n* The Big Bang\n http://www.straight-talk.net/evolution/bigbang.htm\n\n* Anthropic Principle
85139
Everything but Darwinian evolution "theory" has pretty much fallen by the wayside.  Lamarck is easy to refute; it is the selection process every time, which is observable.  Spontaneous generation is simply absurd; also observable.  Creationism is an attempt to suggest that God did it one way when in fact he did it another; by the motivation of mate selection and child care.  "Mother nature's way," if you will.\n\nNatural selection basically says that mate selection, which determines the available genes, together with survival of the offspring, is what moves evolution.  Success in reproduction is basically viable grandchildren, since having sterile or non-reproducing children means the end of that particular line (like in my family).\n\nWe can see it in small ways on the short term, and we can see it in the fossil record in the long term.  The only reason it is called a theory and not a fact is to placate the creationists.  I suspect one of the reasons fundamentalists are against people marrying who are not of the same skin color is to avoid admitting that people change by that method.  But frankly, some of the most attractive people around are those of mixed heritage.  They tend to get the best traits of both parents; every farmer and animal breeder knows that.
601403
Yes it's a theory. Science itself refutes Darwinism. Science is disproving evolution more every day. There is less evidence for evolution today than there was when Charles Darwin first came up with the theory. There are a lot of scientists that don't believe in evolution, and more are changing their beliefs all the time. Here is a partial list of creation scientists (past and present).\nhttp://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-scientists.html\nWith all the evidence against it I really don't see how any open minded intelligent human being could believe in evolution. With the lack of proof for evolution it takes more faith to believe in evolution than it does to believe in creation and intelligent design. There is a lot more evidence for intelligent design than there is for evolution.\n\n* The Cambrian Explosion\nNearly all animal phyla made their first appearance in the fossil record at essentially the same time, an interval of some 5 million years (about 525 to 530 million years ago) called the "Cambrian Explosion.\n\nScientists have found that these early fossils exhibit more anatomical body designs than exist today, and that early animals, the trilobites, had eyes as fully developed as their counterparts today.\n\nMany of the Cambrian fauna, still survive today, all looking much like they did over 500 million years ago. The prominent British evolutionist, Richard Dawkins, comments, "... We find many of them already in an advanced state of evolution, the very first time they appear. It is as though they were just planted there, without any evolutionary history.\n\nTwo places in the world that have an abundance of early (Cambrian) fossils; the Burgess Shale in the Canadian Rockies and the Chengjiang site in China.\n\nIn Stephen J. Gould's popular book, Wonderful Life, he points out that the Burgess Shale Cambrian fossils include "a range of disparity in anatomical design never again equaled, and not matched today by all the creatures in the world's oceans.\n\nFurther, these fossils contain some twenty to thirty kinds of arthropods*** that cannot be placed in any modern group. The modern arthropods, consisting of almost a million species, can all fit into four major groups. But "one quarry in British Columbia, representing the first explosion of multicellular life, reveals more than twenty additional arthropod designs." Today there are about 38 phyla in existence, but the Canadian, Chinese and other Cambrian sites reveal over fifty phyla.\n\nThere has been a decrease in diversity (probably due to global catastrophes). This is the reverse of what evolutionary theory predicts.\n\nBesides diversity, the Burgess Shale shows exquisite detail, right down to "the last filament of a trilobite's gill," or the last meal in a worm's gut.\n\nThe Chengjiang site has even greater detail, and is earlier. According to Paul Chien, the chairman of the biology department at the University of San Francisco, said the preservation is such that internal organs, nerves, and even the water ducts of jellyfish are observable.\n\nResearchers found striking similarities between the compound eyes of the Cambrian trilobites and those of modern insects. According to Riccardo Levi-Setti, "Trilobites could see in their immediate environment with amazingly sophisticated optical devices in the form of large composite eyes. ... The number of individual optical elements in the compound eye could vary from approximately one hundred to more than fifteen thousand in a single eye, a range not very different from that found in modern insects.\n\nThe conclusion is that the eye, a complex visual system, was fully formed and functional extremely early in the fossil record. Obviously, this is not predicted by evolutionary theory.\n\nUntil recently, the phylum of vertebrates had been considered a later arrival in evolutionary history. But not now! Even the vertebrate phylum now extends into the Cambrian pe
81822
The more I learn about evolution, the more it doesn't make sense. I am a very new Christian. If you told me a year ago that creation makes more sense than evolution, I would tell you that you were crazy. No transition fossils for any animals "evolving" into another animal have ever been found. I don't deny there is a lot of changes occurring in living things over the generations–it's called variation (also called micro-evolution). For example, there are chihuahuas and there are St. Bernards.  They all have a common ancestor–-and surprise–-it's a dog.  This is what Darwin observed.  The idea of survival of the fittest does not come to a logical conclusion when the animal turns into a different animal.  \n\nThe span of time since the earth “began” keeps getting longer and longer by evolutionists' measure.  Fifty years ago, it was in the millions of years.  Now it's billions.  This keeps growing to make it fit evolution.  Since no living person has ever seen evolution take place, and evolution has never left a record to prove it exists, it needs to have happened so SLOWLY that many generations of people (since recorded history began thousands of years ago) have never witnessed it.  The more evolutionists learn, the more they have to change their estimates... because evolution is not possible with their older estimates.  \n\nThe same amount of faith is needed to believe in evolution as creation.  However, evolutionist have an advantage because it is REQUIRED to be taught in school.  The alternative theory is not even allowed to be mentioned in school.  Schools are even getting in trouble these days by pointing out that evolution is a theory and not fact.  People call evolution science, but science needs to be able to be observed and/or replicated.  Evolution can do neither of these things.  What other scientific experiment do you know that has no proof, no conclusive evidence, so many missing pieces, consistently proving itself wrong, but instead of ruling that it must be false, they change the input to make it work. If scientist did this with any other experiment, they would be laughed out of their jobs. There have been many evolution hoaxes created throughout the years so that there could be some “proof” of evolution.  Some of these were found out to be hoaxes decades ago, but are still found in science textbooks today.\n\nYes, creation has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in the Bible.  But evolution also has to be taken on faith because you can't prove it other than what it says in a textbook. Your choice (that is what free will is about), but I would just recommend that everyone FULLY examines both sides before concluding one is right.
542891
If you eliminate the evidence, there is no evidence.  Highly advanced reasoning.  You just forgot to wipe every living creature off the face of the Earth.  The careful observations of the variation of forms, coupled with the pattern of variation in the genomes of like and unlike forms is a scientific method of demonstrating the relative relatedness of every living creature.
517035
One piece of advice: Try asking more directional questions rather than a title question.\nTheory of natural selection is a model for explaining the mutational changes that species go through in nature by the pass of time. Even Darwin had to go through guess work when he had to talk about the origin of species.\nThe strongest evidence nowadays about the same ancestory you asked for is the DNA. well if you analyze the DNA of the magpie the crow, human and a bacteria together they are roughly all the same let's say at least 90% of it are alike. So one can deduce that maybe one day they were all oroginated from a single molecule as a start but went through different mutations to form different kinds of species in time
455313
Let me guess, you are another integrity-challenged redneck looking for "I agree, evolution is stupid"... well sorry to disappoint.\n\n1) Why did you forget to say "did God create itself from nothing?" Otherwise, who knows.\n\n2) As it happens speciation has been observed yes. And, of course, the fossil record shows "one species becoming another" in droves.\n\n3) Well over the past few thousand years we HAVE evolved resistance to a whole host of terrible diseases. Seems like we have a lot fewer problems there.
44713
Ahem. People, he's asking about the RATE of change. Not whether changes occur or whether evolution occurs. He clearly already knows that.\n\n__________________________________\n\nWell done. You’ve asked one of the most controversial questions in current evolutionary biology.  Much debate rages about this subject right now. \n\nWhat you are describing is commonly referred to as the evolution of evolvability. As you point out, if a population doesn’t have sufficient variation then environmental change could lead to extinction. But at the same time if the population is too variable the outliers will simply perish in current conditions. For example if elephants contained the inherent variability to produce young twice as big or the size of a rabbit those individuals would die.\n\nThe belief was for 100 years or so that the selective pressure of current environment would maintain a fairly tight rein on variability, that mutation rates were approximately constant and that survival in times of change was simply a case of pot luck. But then people started to look at the fossil record and the real world and it seemed like that wasn’t plausible. Novelties seemed to appear almost overnight, and they appeared almost any time they were needed. \n\nSo then came the concept of punctuated equilibrium. The idea that  a population would sit still for long periods, then as conditions changed they would suddenly leap forwards into a radically different form. That was all well and good, but it was basically just a restatement of the observations, not really an explanatory theory.\n\nIn the past 15 years ago there has been a lot of debate about the idea that organisms have evolved to evolve. That they have evolved in such a way that they are physically stable in times of environmental stasis, but when the environment becomes stressful change they can either mutate more, or reshuffle genes or express pattern of dormant genes to produce stable phenotypic novelties at rates that far exceed background rates.\n\n\nThe theory certainly makes sense. It’s hard to argue that such a trait wouldn’t; be a survival advantage. Unfortunately the evidence is ambiguous. And at the moment there are umpteen dozen theoretical mechanisms to explain how it could occur, and they are impossible to separate out. There is some work which has shown that many species can open up dormant genetic material for expression and re-assortment in response to stress (see first link below). And some experimental evidence suggests mutation rates increase in response to environmental change. Some say that prions are the key. Other favour inherent genetic instability in those individuals that survive initial changes, meaning that the decedent population is inherently prone to genetic varaiation until the environment stabilises and kills of the outliers again. Other propose that assortment of populations within the same or closely related species could explain it. But at this point we can’t even prove that genetic variation does change under stress. But at this point we just don’t know. \n\nYou ask a damn good question but the concept is hard to study and harder to establish with any certainty.\n\n_______\n>>>>Being able to actually understand how, and under what\n>>>> circumstances mutations happen strikes me as extremely\n>>>> important.\n\nWe've actually got a pretty good handle on how and when mutations occur. This is more of a question of when they are expressed or encouraged. Organisms have the ability repair genetic damage thorugh several mechanisms. They also have the ability shield the nucleus fom many mutagens. The issue is whether they may be able to damp down those processes to encourage more mutations.\n\n>>>> I can definitely see that species that do not have the \n>>>>capability to mutate in response to external forces\n>>>> would be selected against.\n\nYes, it's a rather hard
563810
we don't even need fossils to prove evolution, we already have proof that things evolve. like the flu.  if the flu wasn't evolving then there would be only one vaccine for the flu. because it is evolving every year there is a flu shot (for those at risk) to the new strain.  people only object to evolution for religous reasons.  \n\n//\nin response to mr. onyxfire:  the reasons nominated for dissproving evolution seems to say that evolution should eliminate diversity.  and that simply isn't true. when there are alot of the same species in an area they compete for the same resources.  if a mutation came along that was different from that species it would actually be at an advantage because it might not be competing for the same resources.  and that is at the heart of diversity.  having diversity means that some animals will develope certain attributes more keenly for example people hunting for fruit during the day value eyesight more for finding their quarry where as at night bats looking for fruit can't rely on eyesight and so they develope a different specialized set of organs.  i hope that helps you understand why i think your points are incorrect\n&#92;&#92;\nno scientific theory which attempts to understand our world has by necessity precluded the concept of god.  none the less religous theories feel compelled to preclude any acceptance of science so it's my belief that they are quite the dumbasses (not all religious but certainly alot of the policy makers). we all know how well that galileo thing panned out for them.
491103
just an fyi, in genetics one cannot OBTAIN new information, it must be handed down. therefore you can only lose information(de-evolution?). meaning reptiles that dont have genetics for wings cannot randomly grow wings someway down the line.\n\nmy favorite argument is, they dated the earth to be what some odd billion years old? 65? what happened 20 billion years before? if they found this by carbon dating, then how did the carbon have a start? how did it start? how come it just randomly started aging 65 billion years ago if its been around forever? does this rock GAIN more "life" ?
663141
Yet another interesting question, man_id.\n\nAll a theory of abiogenesis can do is give an answer for how life-from-non-life is *possible*.  ... I.e. what ingredients and conditions might result in a replication system that is sufficient for natural selection to take over?  And which ones *may* have been present in the early days of the earth (knowing what we do know about those days)?  There may, in fact, be multiple answers ... many different recipes, all equally possible.  If so, then we may never know which one actually occurred on our planet.\n\nBut it is also possible that we may never find a recipe that works that we know might have been available in the earth's infancy.  We've only started looking.
164664
Evolution is correct, although some find it emotionally unsatisfying.  However, if we go further back, we can think about the amino acids that all living organisms are made from.\nWhen the earth was much younger, carbon and many other elements and compounds were dissolved in the sea.  Over time, lightning strikes and other forces caused these chemicals to bind into amino acids.  Amino acids, although not alive, of course, are the basic building blocks of all life. If you think about evolution including this period of amino acid evolution, you may be more satisfied with your understanding of evolution.\nNow, if you're looking for a "why" we happen to be, I'd say there is no why.  We exist simply because of a series of chemical accidents.  \nYes, we're a small world in a huge cosmos.  Some argue that we must not be random because the chance of our world existing is so tiny.  I say that given the size of the universe, randomness certainly explains life on Earth.  As an analogy, flipping heads 100 times in a row is very unlikely, but if you flip the coin 100 trillion times, well, your odds are pretty good.  \nLastly, we exist, and therefore are able to argue about how we come to exist.  We have to accept that this unlikely series of events did happen because here we all are.  Inert minerals on planet YR-74298 are not sentient, and therefore don't have the luxury of arguing such things. (smile)\nOh, btw, IQ 147.  Was that what you wanted?