Thread: Evolution is a Religion!

Quit talking about something you obviously don't understand and don't want to understand.

Originally posted by bradybaker
Quit talking about something you obviously don't understand and don't want to understand.

Almost off topic but I can understand that. If you know what I mean. How do you know what I understand?
.
Prove it. If you can convince me I’ll submit to it, admit to it, but you can’t because you know understanding is not something that grows out of the ocean.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
Almost off topic but I can understand that. If you know what I mean. How do you know what I understand?
.
Prove it. If you can convince me I’ll submit to it, admit to it, but you can’t because you know understanding is not something that grows out of the ocean.

Have you ever taken the time to study the science of evolution? If you would like me to explain the basics of natural selection, I'd be more than happy to.

Originally posted by bradybaker

Have you ever taken the time to study the science of evolution? If you would like me to explain the basics of natural selection, I'd be more than happy to.

Ok. But how will it be possible for me to believe in it if I’ve experienced the touch of god. I'm not trying to be opposed of any science; I just don't call black white. So are you saying they can booth exist when you say I have no knowledge. I am two or three times the age of most in this forum, have been to collage and have been employed in trades that require engineering to some degree. I don't think I'm retarded but have perception clear enough to predict that if someone hasn’t questioned there self in that area they probably are. So go ahead, explain to this 55-year-old where I missed the detail of what I call a religion.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(dreamtamer007)</div>

Ok. But how will it be possible for me to believe in it if I’ve experienced the touch of god.[/b]

That's the sound of a man who's beyond help, but I'll give a try anyways.

Is it possible that God and evolution can both be true? Yes. But if you take creationism literally, no.

<!--QuoteBegin-dreamtamer007
explain to this 55-year-old where I missed the detail

I'm going to have to ask you to quit flaunting your age around as if it means something. I'm a 20 year old student at a very highly respected university in Canada and have a very strong grasp of the biological and physical sciences.

Ok, now that that's out of the way. Here we go.

Every living eukaryotic cell (cells that are part of a multicellular organism) has within its nucleus a set of biological instructions called DNA. These molecules are long strands of nucleotides.

Throughout the life of the cell, parts of this chain are encoded into various types of proteins responsible for all the functions of the cell, the most important of which is reproduction.

However, during the life of the cell, the DNA is subject to various forces that may cause mutation. These forces include UV light, various chemicals , and certain foods. Also, during DNA-replication, some mistakes can be made by the encoding proteins that result in random mutations.

Ok, so you may be asking, what does DNA mutation have to do with me? Well, it is this random mutation that is the driving force behind natural selection and evolution.

When the mutated DNA is passed on to an organisms offspring, these mutations may manifest themselves. One of three scenarios is possible, 1) the mutation will help the organism, 2) the mutation will not effect the organism, or 3) the mutation will harm the organism.

It is then up to nature to do the rest. Obviously organisms with helpful mutations will be more likely to survive and pass this mutation on, while organisms with harmful mutations will be less likely to survive and reproduce. This is what is meant by the term "survival of the fittest".

It is important to note that natural selection drives the organism to adapt to the specific environment in which it lives. Therefore, if a poplulation happened to split up, half would be faced with a enviroment a, half would be faced with environment b, with each environment selecting for separate mutations. After many generations, the once identical organisms would now be obviously different. If it is no longer possible for these populations to interbreed, they would be considered different species.

Darwin observed the results of this process in his studies of sparrows on the galapagos islands. I recommend checking those studies out, very interesting stuff.

This is what is meant by the term 'natural selection'. It has been observed countless time in nature, and in the laboratory with studies on various bacteria. There is no denying that natural selection takes place, it is a scientific fact.

Evolution is simply an extension of this principle. It posits that all life on earth has a common ancestor that lived at some point in history. For instance, the ancestor common to all multicellular animals is the sea sponge. For a very interesting article on that, check out the March 2005 issue of Discover Magazine.

The Short Proof of Evolution
by
Ian Johnston
Malaspina University-College
Nanaimo, BC
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
We live, we are constantly told, in a scientific age. We look to science to help us achieve the good life, to solve our problems (especially our medical aches and pains), and to tell us about the world. A great deal of our education system, particularly the post-secondary curriculum, is organized as science or social science. And yet, curiously enough, there is one major scientific truth which vast numbers of people refuse to accept (by some news accounts a majority of people in North America)--the fact of evolution. Yet it is as plain as plain can be that the scientific truth of evolution is so overwhelmingly established, that it is virtually impossible to refute within the bounds of reason. No major scientific truth, in fact, is easier to present, explain, and defend.

Before demonstrating this claim, let me make it clear what I mean by evolution, since there often is some confusion about the term. By evolution I mean, very simply, the development of animal and plant species out of other species not at all like them, for example, the process by which, say, a species of fish gets transformed (or evolves) through various stages into a cow, a kangaroo, or an eagle. This definition, it should be noted, makes no claims about how the process might occur, and thus it certainly does not equate the concept of evolution with Darwinian Natural Selection, as so many people seem to do. It simply defines the term by its effects (not by how those effects are produced, which could well be the subject of another argument).

The first step in demonstrating the truth of evolution is to make the claim that all living creatures must have a living parent. This point has been overwhelmingly established in the past century and a half, ever since the French scientist Louis Pasteur demonstrated how fermentation took place and thus laid to rest centuries of stories about beetles arising spontaneously out of dung or gut worms being miraculously produced from non-living material. There is absolutely no evidence for this ancient belief. Living creatures must come from other living creatures. It does no damage to this point to claim that life must have had some origin way back in time, perhaps in a chemical reaction of inorganic materials (in some primordial soup) or in some invasion from outer space. That may well be true. But what is clear is that any such origin for living things or living material must result in a very simple organism. There is no evidence whatsoever (except in science fiction like Frankenstein) that inorganic chemical processes can produce complex, multi-cellular living creatures (the recent experiments cloning sheep, of course, are based on living tissue from other sheep).

The second important point in the case for evolution is that some living creatures are very different from some others. This, I take it, is self-evident. Let me cite a common example: many animals have what we call an internal skeletal structure featuring a backbone and skull. We call these animals vertebrates. Most animals do not have these features (we call them invertebrates). The distinction between vertebrates and invertebrates is something no one who cares to look at samples of both can reasonably deny, and, so far as I am aware, no one hostile to evolution has ever denied a fact so apparent to anyone who observes the world for a few moments.

The final point in the case for evolution is this: simple animals and plants existed on earth long before more complex ones (invertebrate animals, for example, were around for a very long time before there were any vertebrates). Here again, the evidence from fossils is overwhelming. In the deepest rock layers, there are no signs of life. The first fossil remains are of very simple living things. As the strata get more recent, the variety and complexity of life increase (although not at a uniform rate). And no human fossils have ever been found except in the most superficial layers of the earth (e.g., battlefields, graveyards, flood deposits, and so on). In all the countless geological excavations and inspections (for example, of the Grand Canyon), no one has ever come up with a genuine fossil remnant which goes against this general principle (and it would only take one genuine find to overturn this principle).

Well, if we put these three points together, the rational case for evolution is air tight. If all living creatures must have a living parent, if living creatures are different, and if simpler forms were around before the more complex forms, then the more complex forms must have come from the simpler forms (e.g., vertebrates from invertebrates). There is simply no other way of dealing reasonably with the evidence we have. Of course, one might deny (as some do) that the layers of the earth represent a succession of very lengthy epochs and claim, for example, that the Grand Canyon was created in a matter of days, but this surely violates scientific observation and all known scientific processes as much as does the claim that, say, vertebrates just, well, appeared one day out of a spontaneous combination of chemicals.

To make the claim for the scientific truth of evolution in this way is to assert nothing about how it might occur. Darwin provides one answer (through natural selection), but others have been suggested, too (including some which see a divine agency at work in the transforming process). The above argument is intended, however, to demonstrate that the general principle of evolution is, given the scientific evidence, logically unassailable and that, thus, the concept is a law of nature as truly established as is, say, gravitation. That scientific certainty makes the widespread rejection of evolution in our modern age something of a puzzle (but that's a subject for another essay). In a modern liberal democracy, of course, one is perfectly free to reject that conclusion, but one is not legitimately able to claim that such a rejection is a reasonable scientific stance.

The following remarks have been prompted by e-mail objections over the past two years to the article "The Short Proof of Evolution." They are intended to serve as a response to those who wish to challenge the validity of the case made there for evolution as a general concept explaining the development of animal and plant species, without reference to how that process might actually work. I will not repeat here the case made in that earlier essay. Those who wish to review it can consult the following link: Evolution). The paragraphs below list most of the common objections I have received, together with a brief response to each one.

My most general response to almost all objections is the following: Would the person making the objection please indicate where precisely the argument laid out in the essay is fallacious? Is there a particular factual claim there which is not warranted? Or are the facts correct but the reasoning erroneous? If the response does not directly answer one of those questions but instead raises extraneous issues, then it is not much use as a challenge to the case made in the essay.

Empty Objections

This rubric includes all complaints which have no content. For example, "What you have said proves nothing," "People have shown that Creationism is scientifically valid," or more succinct pejorative comments (often about the personality of the author) or direct appeals to scripture or some unnamed authority. Such objections, however sincere, are, of course, empty, because they offer no reasonable ground for disagreement and merely indicate the writer's displeasure with the conclusions.

Origin of Life Objections

The most common objection to the case made for evolution is the question, "But what about the origin of life?" What about it, indeed? As the article itself makes clear, questions about the origin of life, though addressing a related issue, are red herrings, since evolution concerns itself with the diversity of species once life is established on earth, not with how life first began. So such a question is rather like raising doubts about how steel is made in any argument about how a car engine works. Naturally, the origin of life on earth is a fascinating issue, one which scientists continue to explore. They have come up with a number of hypothetical possibilities, but as yet there is no favourite theory, nothing which has yielded a wealth of predictions which one can easily test to confirm or reject the hypothesis.

Those who argue that because there is no satisfactory scientific explanation at the moment, therefore there cannot be one and that thus some non-scientific (i.e., religious) account is necessary may well be, as so often in the history of science, jumping the gun. They might do well to heed the advice of Bishop Burnet all those years ago:

'Tis a dangerous thing to engage the authority of scripture in disputes about the natural world, in opposition to reason; lest time, which brings all things to light, should discover that to be evidently false which he had made scripture to assert. . . . We are not to suppose that any truth concerning the natural world can be an enemy to religion; for truth cannot be an enemy to truth, God is not divided against himself.

Those who wish to focus on this point might also like to consider the following questions: Why does life have to have an origin? Could it not have always existed somewhere in this universe or a parallel one? Why does there have to be a "first cause" at all?

Any scientific explanation for the origin of life will, of course, have to involve matter and physical laws, without appeals to supernatural processes, and it will have to generate predictions which can be tested.

The Defence of Genesis as a Scientific Document

Another common red herring is the claim that if we read Genesis allegorically, making each "day" a long period of time, then the sequence of creations described matches (more or less) the narrative developed by science. Hence, we ought to ascribe some scientific validity to the Biblical narrative.

Here again, the reasoning is fallacious. The fact that a confirmed scientific theory bears some resemblance to an old story provides no scientific justification for the story. The Greeks had old stories which explained the orbits and positions of many stars. These myths often involved transformations of human beings into celestial phenomena (as a reward or punishment). Science has developed and confirmed different theories for why these stars appear to move the way they do. Even if such ancient stories contain details also found, more or less, in scientific explanations, that confers no scientific value on those stories.

Objections to Darwin

A number of those taking issue with the case made for evolution point to some real or apparent difficulties with Darwin's account of how evolution proceeds (that is, through natural selection). Again, as the original article points out, such objections are irrelevant. The general case in support of evolution derives none of its strength from Darwin's work and would remain exactly as it is if we had never heard of Darwin or if we decisively refuted his theories. Such objections are easy to make, of course, because scientists themselves are always calling attention to certain problems with parts of Darwin's theory, but they do not affect in the slightest the argument for evolution made in the essay. The theory of evolution was well known long before Darwin. His grandfather wrote a poem about it, and, some forty years before Darwin's book first appeared, Lamarck published a comprehensive theory of evolutionary change. What's significant about Darwin's writing is not the general account of evolution but his description of how evolution proceeds.

To repeat the point: Darwin's theory is an account of how evolution works. If there are problems with that theory or even if it is discredited, that does not disprove the existence of evolution. Just because we have problems agreeing how something works, that does not entitle us to claim that the phenomenon does not exist. If we're not sure how salmon find their way back to their spawning grounds, does that mean they don't go there?

Hence, any appeal to problems with, say, the mutation rate or to the probabilities of random changes producing complex structures or to what is going on at the microscopic level, however pertinent they may be to a discussion of natural selection, are irrelevant to the argument presented for evolution.

The "Fossils are Misleading" Objection

One common objection takes issue with the claim that the rock layers of the earth (and the fossils they contain) indicate a sequence of geological events over a long period of time. Now, this objection has one great merit most of the others lack: it does engage the argument made in the essay by directly challenging one of the three factual claims upon which the argument rests. That, however, is its only merit. For those making this objection are explicitly or implicitly claiming that the geological record was made in a matter of days or weeks by a process as yet unexplained, other than by appeals to miraculous processes. But if we permit imaginatively created miracles designed to answer what we would like to believe to serve as reasonable explanations, then there is an infinite number of possibilities, all equally likely and all equally incapable of verification (for example, the once popular idea that the fossils were planted in the rocks by the devil to mislead human beings). Scientific enquiry achieved its favoured status largely because it delivered us from such irresolvable, sterile, and often bloody disputes.

The fossil record, especially the succession of different fossils in different rock layers (including many extinct species), is the most compelling evidence against the view that the earth was created quickly and has always contained the same forms of life and also the reason virtually all serious scientists eventually conceded (often with great reluctance) that the earth has a long history, a narrative that includes the appearance and disappearance of many different species.

It is also significant that no human remains occur in the fossil record except in the most superficial layers of the earth (graveyards, battlefields, flood plains, and so on). A more or less literal reading of Genesis, of course, would require that human remains occur alongside the remnants of all other created beings.

The "Evolution is Circular" Argument

Allied to the objection listed immediately above is the claim that the argument for evolution is invalid because it is circular; that is, by stating that the fossil-bearing rocks indicate strata laid down over long periods of time at different ages of earth's history, the arguer has assumed the truth that was in question. Hence, the structure of the argument is fallacious.

This objection is, of course, spurious. Science can plausibly explain and confirm that some rock formations are made by solid material and organic remains settling in water, that over time different rock layers will lie on top of each other, that, if the layers are undisturbed, the younger rock layers will lie on top of the older rock layers, and thus, that the fossil material in the higher undisturbed layers will be younger than the fossil material in the lower undisturbed layers. This claim is not something the argument simply assumes: it is based on hundreds of years of observation and testing. For a long time, oddly enough, it was used to defend the Genesis account of the Deluge, until people started to realize just how long it would take for physical processes to create what we see all around us and also how many floods there must have been.

The Objection Based on the Absence of Visual Confirmation

Others reject the notion of evolution outright (without reference to the argument) with the simple claim that it cannot be true because no one has ever seen a complete transformation of one distinct species into another (e.g., fish to reptiles). There may have been all sorts of minor developments of one species into another distinct but closely related species (an established scientific finding), but without such visual experience of a major transformation, so they say, evolution is just a "theory."

Well, of course evolution is a theory, just as atomic structures, black holes, electricity, relativity, DNA, magnetism, and so on are "just theories." But so what? We do not have direct visual evidence of these things with our own eyes (who has ever seen an electron or a molecule or a gene with the naked eye?). What we do observe, often with the aid of very sophisticated machines, are larger events which we explain as effects of those theoretical components. Most scientific theories involve natural elements that we cannot see. Those who seriously believe that this objection carries any weight need to become more familiar with the nature of scientific enquiry and the meaning of a scientific "proof."

Science does not proceed by demonstrating that certain theories are irrefutably true. It demonstrates by repeated testing that they are not false. The more a theory is confirmed, the stronger the probability that the explanation it offers is correct. This process produces what amounts to the explanation which best fits the facts we have collected (even if the fit is not always complete). And how does such confirmation proceed? There are two main tests. The first is to make a series of predictions based on the theory and then to explore the validity of those predictions. If a prediction holds, the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged, perhaps even disproved. The second method of confirmation is to see how the theory accounts for new, unexpected discoveries. Can these be explained in terms of the theory? If so, then the theory has been confirmed; if not, then the theory has been challenged or disproved. By these two tests, the theory of evolution is spectacularly successful: it has been confirmed countless times over the past three centuries (at least). It would take only one discovery to discredit the entire theory (e.g., the existence of a mammal fossil in the lowest rock layers). That has never occurred.

This aspect of scientific explanation gives the method its unique power. Unlike some other knowledge claims (like many of those based on scripture), discrediting or disproving a scientific theory does no harm to scientific enquiry itself. Quite the contrary. It forces scientists to come up with a more refined or a different theory which can better account for the anomaly, and hence it strengthens the explanatory power of science and of particular scientific theories, like evolution.

Finally, to argue, as some readers do, that just because we haven't found complex vertebrate fossils (including human beings) in the lower strata doesn't mean they are not there and that thus we should not consider evolution valid indicates a complete failure to understand the nature of scientific reasoning. Should we throw out the theory of gravity just because, for all we know, some day a stone dropped out of a window might fly upward?

What About Intelligent Design?

The Intelligent Design argument, which holds that the development of organic life must be guided by some higher-order intelligence responsible for the incredibly complex designs of particular structures (e.g., the human eye), is entirely compatible with the theory of evolution (although not with Darwin's account of how evolution works). All one has to concede is that the process governing evolution is supernatural rather than natural. This is not a scientific position, of course, since any invocation of non-natural causation in explanations about nature lies outsides the methods of science. But it is one way to believe in evolution without abandoning a faith in god or gods.

Given the relatively simple claims of the Intelligent Design argument, it obviously provides no direct encouragement for any particular system of belief or set of creation stories. All it states is that there must some higher entity or entities guiding the process.

The argument against Intelligent Design has nothing to do with the theory of evolution. It stems from the logical problem (pointed out long ago by Spinoza and Kant) that one can make no reliable inferences about supernatural entities on the basis of natural observations. The wonderful complexity and symmetry in nature may well encourage faith in a supernatural designer, but those qualities do not enable one to make firm conclusions about the existence of such a divine presence or about any attributes such a presence might or might not possess.

One Final Comment

Those who wish to claim some sort of scientific credibility for Creationism (or Creationist Science) are, ironically enough, often undermining their own faith. Since science is the search for natural laws (preferably mathematically precise universal laws) which govern natural phenomena and since science requires rational procedures, a claim that Creationism has some scientific validity is imposing restraints on God, saying, if effect, that He must operate in accordance with what science has discovered or by the rules of scientific reasoning and not according to His will. If one denies this claim and insists that there are no restraints on God, who may observe or depart from reason for His own inscrutable purposes, then it's clear that there is no scientific basis for that approach to the natural world. The bravest Christian spirits are those who boldly grasp this point and cry, with Tertullian, "Credo quia absurdum est!"

Originally posted by bradybaker


Ok, so you may be asking, what does DNA mutation have to do with me? Well, it is this random mutation that is the driving force behind natural selection and evolution.

I appreciate you taking the time to explain all of that. I read every word but confess I'm getting tired tonight so I will have to try and respond with as little word as possible. I copied this part of your quote because I think it underlines where I believe differently from some of the facts as you stated. And that is random mutation or specifically random anything. We just simply don't think anything is random. Not to get off the subject of evolution but this is related to the physical substance we observe as factual. I'm sure you have tried to figure out why when taking distance x and dividing it in halves there is no end. I might suggest it’s just as possible that there is no limit to the vast size of the universe disregarding it may be circular. What is my point? There is no proof that anything even exists under observation. Therefore all things not only may be a dream but also more simply may be spirit. The odds are in its favor. zzzz

I'm wondering what it is exactly that makes evolution a religion?

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
We just simply don't think anything is random.

Neither do I.

But regardless of whether or not it's random, there's no disputing the fact that it's happening.

evolution is NOT a religon
it is a sicentific theroy that via natural selection spieces changed until they looked like they do today.

Religon-A community that shares a spirtuallity

evolution is not a religon it is a theroy not in tune with the bible

get it right

just say that you think evolution is worng.

And yet I suppose creationists would be offended if I said that according to their argument technically we are more related to common dirt and mud than we are monkeys...

Originally posted by bradybaker

Neither do I.

But regardless of whether or not it's random, there's no disputing the fact that it's happening.

If an event is not random isn’t it set with a purpose or form? If you roll a dice the results are considered random. If one side of the dice is heavier then it is fixed. Natural things are fixed with a natural form of decay. The natural order of things is decay. Yet life is persistent to survive with purpose.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
If an event is not random isn’t it set with a purpose or form?

Just because something is not random does not necessarily mean it is done purposefully.

Originally posted by Sifr
And yet I suppose creationists would be offended if I said that according to their argument technically we are more related to common dirt and mud than we are monkeys...

That's correct. Not that we would be offended. God did make Adam from dust.

Evolution is a religion? What other "religion" has such a tremendous amount of scientific backing?

The theory of the atom is a religion. The basic building block of matter is actually the fairy munchkin. I have felt it..

Originally posted by Universal Mind
Evolution is a religion? What other \"religion\" has such a tremendous amount of scientific backing?

the fairy munchkin. I have felt it..

How about We were planted here by space aliens.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007
Evolution is a Religion!
I am not talking about the word evolution in general but the way it is typically accepted. In general what I mean is the “religion of man coming from the Sea”. I will not wonder from the topic and when you heathens try to have the post removed it will have to be for other reasons then my post being off topic.

Might I point out that evolution is merely a theory, adopted by the scientific community as fact when there are not underlying contiguous relationships to support it as a fact. 'You’re right it is a religion' with a mass congregation of believers.

Originally posted by Awaken4e1


Might I point out that evolution is merely a theory, adopted by the scientific community as fact when there are not underlying contiguous relationships to support it as a fact. 'You’re right it is a religion' with a mass congregation of believers.

Maybe it takes a spirit awakened individual to see that.
Once I was blind but now I can see.

Originally posted by dreamtamer007

Maybe it takes a spirit awakened individual to see that.
Once I was blind but now I can see.

An Awaken 4 Ever 1....

Originally posted by Awaken
Might I point out that evolution is merely a theory...

You could, but you'd be wrong. First off - evolution is a fact. The mechanism by which evolution happens is the theory. Secondly, a scientific theory does not carry the same connotations as a \"theory you thought up while drunk last night\". A scientitic theory is \"a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena\". The phenomena (like: life forms have changed/diversified over time, life has been around for millions of years) are facts, the theory of evolution attempts to explain these facts.

Originally posted by dreamtamer
....God did make Adam from dust.

Are supported by no evidence whatsoever, whereas the theory of evolution provides a lot of evidence for the common descent of man and ape.

And if people were to accept (biblical) creationism, evolution would not be the only science to go. Geology, paleontology, anthropology, archaeology - these things all thoroughly debunk parts of genesis (mainly noah's ark). Hell, the bible says pi is 3, lets chuck out maths too.

-spoon

Originally posted by spoon
*Are supported by no evidence whatsoever, whereas the theory of evolution provides a lot of evidence for the common descent of man and ape.

If this is true then why do we still have apes on Earth? Why haven't they Evolved?

And where is the un refuted missing link?

Rev, you have the shortest fucking memory I've ever seen in a human being (anterograde amnesia patients excluded).

Originally posted by The Rev
Might I point out that evolution is merely a theory, adopted by the scientific community as fact when there are not underlying contiguous relationships to support it as a fact.

http://www.dreamviews.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=20759

Originally posted by The Rev
If this is true then why do we still have apes on Earth? Why haven't they Evolved?

You asked that exact question in another thread like 3 days ago! And I explained it to you! How can you even respect yourself when you show such a clear disregard for actual information?

It's moments like these that I'm ashamed to be the same species as people like you. I really hope there is a hell, because no God would let someone so shortsighted and closeminded into their kingdom.

And next time spoon puts in some effort, try to respond to the whole post instead of picking out one pointing and re-asking a question that's already been answered.

PS. I'm 100% sure that if you respond to this post at all, it will only be the part where I call you a moron, not the reasonable part that shows how true that really is.

Now, religious tychoons (who know who they are), please don't twist this post to suit your ideas on God. Yes, I believe in a God, maybe not you're, but in the small way I am religious I know not to impose my beliefs onto someone else; so keep all comments, questions, ideas, beliefs and hands inside the car until the end... savvy?

The question you are all asking is why haven't the other apes evolved? I think the more pressing question is why did WE evolve?

My personal theory is thusly this. Our origin is the trial and error of nature (or God, if that makes you happy to think He's in charge of nature) for several hundred aeons, striving towards perfection. This is not saying we are perfect, but give me a moment to explain...

The first creatures came from the sea or water and ventured forth onto land, thereby defeating the ocean predators and giving them a chance at survival. So, millions of years went by but still something wasn't happening, it was all rather slow. Dinosaurs came into existance, great reptiles who roamed the land... but still not perfect. The closest to sentience that the dinosaurs achieved, now popularly excepted by Palaeontologists, was creatures like the velociraptor. These raptors were mean creatures, with the skills to hunt, prey, and an adaptability to their environment we shall come back to later. Unfortuantly for them, a big arsed meteorite hit the yucotan peninsula and ended their way of existence.

I think, if nature, or God for that matter saw that (He could have turned around for 5 seconds to get a Coke from His fridge...) I think he'd be "Oh [insert expletives copiously]"

So, its was back to the drawing board. As you can see, reptiles, when faced with sudden climate change are stuck with the problem that the plants die out, the herbivores follow, and the carnivores, including our dear Raptors end up, up the creek with no canoe. One huge ripple effect throughout the food chain.

This is probably when it gets a little interesting though. Mammals somehow manage to weather this all out relatively unscathed, and it was this that gave them an advantage. If nature was looking for survival and the most perfect creature to fashion beings out of, then mammals fit the profile. So we move forward 62 millions years...

The apes started to emerge as beings, including one of our dear ancestors. Something happened with this proto-human strain of the ape family, maybe it was nature giving us added insentive, maybe an enviromental effect, or maybe it was just one of those quirky quantum leaps in mutation that lead to accelerated evolution, once advantage being we became aware of our surroundings in a deeper way that most other creatures. We also developed an opposible thumb, not to disimilar to the "thumb" some bipedal dinosaurs had (raptors, iguanadons etc)...

We also became omnivores, giving us a dual feature that animals generally lack. The ability that if an enviromental disaster were to occur, we could eat meat and plants and survive through it.

We began to walk on two legs, coming down from the trees to explore, eventually becoming so much taller and heavier that going back was impossible. We began to have hair loss, despite moving to colder climates, it gaves an added insentive to learn to warm ourselves. Once again, we adapted by learning new skills, how to hunt for fur and food.

And after a long few aeons we are now sitting here, arguing about it.

So basically, thats the most likely reasons we've evolved. I think personally and philosophically that gives the human race a much better testament to our spirit, as special beings who managed to adapted and mutate to their environment to survive against the odds. And that to me, sounds better than being created, prepackaged by some God does...