[quote]You showed your ignorance when you mentioned "thinking beaks into a shape".[/quote]I was explaining how intelligence is not hereditary, and you didn't quote the entire reply. I continued to say (and it is even supported by Darwin) that if one was smart and he married another who was even as smart, their children would not be even a fraction as intelligent as any of them.[quote]Intelligence can start with something as simple as knowing "that's a predator, avoid it"[/quote]So you are implying that after millions of years of existence, humans were the only creatures to develop intelligence.[quote]..."that's poisonous, don't eat it".[/quote]Now this part of your statement is completely illogical. Any animal that thought this would never have known such a fact since something considered poisonous would not have been realized until after they ate the poisonous plant, and doing so would have caused the creature to die from eating the already not-known poison plant; thus, the news would never have been promulgated.[quote]As for that lion example, I've got news for you. Life isn't like a gladiator arena. The Romans threw slaves in with the lions knowing full well they were going to die...[/quote]This statement shows how little this individual knew about the gladiator arena.[spoiler]*fail*[/spoiler][quote]...because even though the slave might be smarter than the lion, he was trapped in an arena where all that mattered was strength. But did you stop to think how the lion got there? That's right, because humans were smart enough to trap it.[/quote]In your hypothetical situation, let's go for something more realistic: Even after millions of years of existence, if the naked human that inconveniently came across the paths of a naked lion, which would have won if they were to proceed at each other aggressively? My example toward that other individual who I was replying to pointed out that the fact of the matter is that no matter how smart a creature is, Natural Selection does not support it; thus, the evolutionary process kills itself, and you repeating the scenario demonstrates the support for my thesis.[quote]Why don't you explain how my thinking differs from that of most "evolutionists"? Because, as far as I can tell, I'm just citing basic principles of nature.[/quote][INFORMATION PENDING]...

You're confusing smart and intelligent. Smart are the guys who can multiply ten digit numbers in their heads. Intelligence, at its simplest level, is simply the ability think. An animal doesn't have to be dying to know that something was poison. Maybe it recognizes a bitter taste and spits the thing out. Maybe it sees another animal die after eating the thing and makes the connection. Again with the lion. Remember that bit about knowing when to run away from predators? A naked unarmed man who charges a lion head on is a moron and quite frankly deserves to die. He has failed at natural selection, so his genes won't get passed on. The human doesn't need to kill the lion. He just needs to survive so he can get laid. He can use his intelligence to his advantage by, say, climbing a tree or picking up a heavy rock. Maybe he urinates somewhere to spread his scent around and confuse the lion. Maybe he knows that lions sleep a lot, so he waits for that before running away. Still don't how intelligence can be an advantage? Now, knowledge isn't hereditary, but it can still be passed from parent to child. Children can learn by observing their parents. Thus, the knowledge obtained by the parent during its lifetime is passed on to the next generation. The instinct to observe and imitate a parent is a trait that could affect natural selection.

Why is this marked as the answer? That analogy is completely irrelevant in regards to evolution. If you think that evolution works like "Oh well i'm not growing ten wings so this whole thing must be wrong", then you need to stop and go read a study, watch a video and just educate yourself.

[quote]Why is this marked as the answer?[/quote]So more people could see it.

So more people could see its illegitimate case, and its misunderstanding?

No, so that people can see it as an analogy, an analogy proving a point.

Yes it is an analogy. However it is one that doesn't work.

Yes Lol. Notice how he ignored the rest of your comment smh XD

Yeah seriously, like I worked hard on that last bit haha

Stating again, "I have returned."

Sure, if you see it that way.

I mean what he says is way off what the Theory of Evolution states so yeah, I see it that way.

[quote]...the Theory of Evolution...[/quote]Jury, I rest my case.

[quote]A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that is acquired through the scientific method and repeatedly tested and confirmed through observation and experimentation.[/quote] I rest my case.

Sorry, I thought you stated "the theory of evolution." My bad, but I see your reasoning when we are actually supposed to consider it "the scientific theory of evolution." Correct?

*facepalm* Would you call it "the scientific theory of gravity" too? Oh what about "Scientific Cell Theory"? Haha omg

Evolution is evolution. Gravity is gravity. Let's not confuse the two.

Its marked the answer because the OP said so. Go study and learn to forum.

OP said so is not a good reason. OP didn't pose a question, so there shouldn't even be an answer. Let alone, one that is just completely false, with no credibility.

[quote]OP didn't pose a question, so there shouldn't even be an answer. Let alone, one that is just completely false, with no credibility.[/quote]If you think taking the statement literally will make us like you, well that's just stupid. Of course we don't mean it literally. Reading skills people...