Creationism = Evolution

[Meatros]

Quote by: Impenitent, You just contradicted yourself. If understanding is an impossibility then it would be impossible to understand that understanding is an impossibilty-thereby rendoring your position a logical contradiction. In otherwords your position is intellectually dishonest.

no it isn't... you just didn't understand it...[/quote]

Perhaps you are right, but let's see how you get around this: If you can not understand anything then how can you understand that you can't understand anything?

You can't. In fact, the ability to argue these facts demonstrates mankind's ability to understand some things-thereby destroying your point.



So please, if you would, help me (and everyone else) understand this...

[Impenitent]

as Socrates said, I know that I know nothing...

we are playing a game with the definitions of words, nothing more...

[Immortalist]

Ah Impenitent! What a poor attempt at being a nihilist. When you're IQ breaks 60 I suggest you sell.

If you have the intellect for Dawkins I recommend you read him...immediately.

[Immortalist]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
the salient point was that science works on induction... science is based on an error...

some inductions are mere probabilities while others are outright errors... neither is based on universal fact<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Induction should not be argued as a problem for science, but as a problem for all knowledge. Science makes predictions based on the assumption that it's theories are plausible representations of reality, and that assumption can be falsified by a contrary result. What field of science asserts knowledge of absolute truth?

None, that's left for religion to do.

[Impenitent]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Immortalist,)
Ah Impenitent! What a poor attempt at being a nihilist. When you're IQ breaks 60 I suggest you sell.

If you have the intellect for Dawkins I recommend you read him...immediately.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

your ad hominems make you appear so enlightened

welcome to the board

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
as Socrates said, I know that I know nothing...

we are playing a game with the definitions of words, nothing more...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Actually, according to what you've previously stated, it's impossible for you to know that you know nothing.

BTW-You were the one who wanted to play word games, so don't complain when someone picks up the gauntlet you throw down.

[Impenitent]

impossible to know that I know nothing? not really...

knowledge is impossible... knowing that it is impossible isn't impossible...

it's along the lines of there being absolutely no absolutes...

I am not complaining

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
impossible to know that I know nothing? not really...

knowledge is impossible... knowing that it is impossible isn't impossible...

it's along the lines of there being absolutely no absolutes...

I am not complaining<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

You actually can't even attempt to make that statement if what you are saying is correct because it relies on knowledge. Communicating relies on knowledge.

You concede that there is understanding and knowledge, by the very underlying principles of your argument.

In otherwords, you can't disagree with me, because the very nature of disagreeing concedes my point.

[Impenitent]

no, I deny understanding or knowledge...

I'm right, you're wrong...

and you can't disagree with me because you don't know what you're talking about...

[Meatros]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
no, I deny understanding or knowledge...

I'm right, you're wrong...

and you can't disagree with me because you don't know what you're talking about...<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

It doesn't work that way, because you are the one denying understanding and knowledge-not I.

So by your own logic, you can not claim that you are right and that I am wrong.

You can't even claim that *I'm* disagreeing with you, because that would require an element of understanding (which you've denied).

[Impenitent]

yes it does work that way :)

by my own logic I can say whatever I like... does it make sense? no, it cannot make sense... does what you claim make sense? no, it cannot make sense... nothing can make sense

I can claim all day long, I just can't know it or understand it :)

and neither can you

[AnonT]

That other thread is horrendously long, and I don't want to wade through it to see if any of this has been brought up.

Anyway, not only do I not see much of a conflict between creationism and evolution (some people will tell you that creationism tells the "why" while evolution tells the "how"), but I see evolution as more of a proof of creationism.

Look at it this way:
According to evolution, plants came extremely early on the evolutionary scale, before anything we'd consider animals, having evolved almost 4 billion years ago, within a few hundred million years of the time that the first bacteria evolved.
According to evolution, the first animals evolved out of the sea, and the first major era (epoch? I think that's the word they use) of life on earth was water-based.
According to evolution, the next epoch was mostly the dinosaurs.
The last epoch was/is mammals, with humanity being an extremely recent (less than a million years old, with less than 10,000 years of "modern" man) evolution.

According to creationism, plants were created very early on, before any animals.
According to creationism, the first animals created were "sea creatures". The next major set of creatures were birds. The next major set of creatures were mammals. The last major creation was humanity.

So, as far as the order in which life came about, the two disparities we have now are dinosaurs vs. birds, and what happened to bacteria and other microscopic or odd life forms.
Well, obviously, someone 5,000 years ago when the Bible was written wouldn't have understood bacteria, so they wouldn't have written it down even if they were told; and even if they did, the people copying it would have omitted it because they had no clue what it was about.
As for dinosaurs vs. birds, there's actually a growing number of paleontologists who are arguing that dinosaurs were more likely birds than reptiles. First of all, many dinosaur skeletons contain bone structures that fit bird skeletons much more closely than lizard skeletons. Second, the fossilized tissues that led them to the conclusion that dinosaurs grew scales are actually more similar to the tissues birds use to make feathers than to the tissues lizards use to make scales (although the two types of tissue are extremely similar). Third, there's evidence from fossilized tracks that dinosaurs ran at speeds that would kill a cold blooded animal, like a lizard, but that would be comfortable for a warm blooded animal, like a bird. So, the conflict there really is only a conflict if you take the outdated opinion that dinosaurs were more likely lizards than birds.

So, as far as the order in which life was created, there are no real conflicts between the Bible and evolution theory; the fact that the Bible is uncannily close to evolution theory, especially with the three major epochs (sea life, dinosaurs, mammals) fitting in the same order as they lie in the Bible, and with humanity being more recent in each.

This leaves us with two other conflicts: The time issue (6-7 days vs. 15-20 billion years), and physicists' theories on the creation of the universe.

Anyway, if you look at big bang theory, it basically says that at some point in time (basically 0 time for the universe), the amount of volume taken up by all the mass in the universe was smaller than the size of an electron. That mass then suddenly combusted and spread out, eventually spreading enough to form into suns and planets.
Compare that to the first few verses of Genesis, which state that in the beginning, there was nothing, and God made a separation and separated out the earth and the heavens. Sure, it's artsy and poetic, but it makes more sense than that song by the Police about the dinosaurs. I could never understand what the hell Sting was singing about until someone explained it to me, and even then it sounds like he's singing about something else. So, really, having some artistic prose in Genesis that still sounds basically like what physicists think the early days of our current universe were like is pretty darn good for having been written a few thousand years before Newton got hit on the head and started thinking about physics.

Now we have another disparity: The Bible says that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars. Well, consider that plants first evolved almost 4 billion years ago; that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the age of the galaxy. Many of the stars in the sky hadn't fully formed yet, we may not have had a moon yet, and we may not have had as many planets in the solar system as we do now. Or maybe someone just got lazy and put plants before the sun, stars, and moon, even when they were originally the other way around. Hey, mistakes happen. I'll have to look into that one more to be sure, though.

Anyway, assuming I'm right, the only disparity left is the time issue. If I remember enough about Hebrew, they have a verb form that combines has, is, and will be - basically it's all three verb forms in one. So, you can say "I'm doing this, I've been doing this, and I'll continue to do this" in a lot fewer words. Well, from what I remember from talking to people who know more Hebrew than I do, the Torah was originally written using that verb form during the creation story, without any mention of the amount of time it took. It just said, "God created, is creating, and will continue to create in this way...." without saying how long it took (but telling it in a specific order). When Christians translated the Torah to put it into their Bible, there weren't Greek or Latin words with the equivalent verb form, so they decided to throw good translating skills out the window and go with something that sounded fancy and artsy instead. Fuggin bastards. Because of that, us Christians now study a Bible that tells us that the universe was created in 6 days (with 1 for rest), when, in actuality, the Torah, which is closer to the original, never limited the amount of time taken.

So, we have a message from thousands of years before any form of physics or biology was around telling us basically how the universe was created and the basic order in which life evolved. Kinda miraculous, huh?

[AnonT]

You know, I realize, I probably should have posted this under the religion forum. However, the fact that there are already two 15 page plus threads (one here, one there) confused me. Sorry, everyone!

[damnrad]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
That other thread is horrendously long, and I don't want to wade through it to see if any of this has been brought up.

Anyway, not only do I not see much of a conflict between creationism and evolution (some people will tell you that creationism tells the "why" while evolution tells the "how"), but I see evolution as more of a proof of creationism.

Look at it this way:
According to evolution, plants came extremely early on the evolutionary scale, before anything we'd consider animals, having evolved almost 4 billion years ago, within a few hundred million years of the time that the first bacteria evolved.
According to evolution, the first animals evolved out of the sea, and the first major era (epoch? I think that's the word they use) of life on earth was water-based.
According to evolution, the next epoch was mostly the dinosaurs.
The last epoch was/is mammals, with humanity being an extremely recent (less than a million years old, with less than 10,000 years of "modern" man) evolution.

According to creationism, plants were created very early on, before any animals.
According to creationism, the first animals created were "sea creatures". The next major set of creatures were birds. The next major set of creatures were mammals. The last major creation was humanity.

So, as far as the order in which life came about, the two disparities we have now are dinosaurs vs. birds, and what happened to bacteria and other microscopic or odd life forms.
Well, obviously, someone 5,000 years ago when the Bible was written wouldn't have understood bacteria, so they wouldn't have written it down even if they were told; and even if they did, the people copying it would have omitted it because they had no clue what it was about.
As for dinosaurs vs. birds, there's actually a growing number of paleontologists who are arguing that dinosaurs were more likely birds than reptiles. First of all, many dinosaur skeletons contain bone structures that fit bird skeletons much more closely than lizard skeletons. Second, the fossilized tissues that led them to the conclusion that dinosaurs grew scales are actually more similar to the tissues birds use to make feathers than to the tissues lizards use to make scales (although the two types of tissue are extremely similar). Third, there's evidence from fossilized tracks that dinosaurs ran at speeds that would kill a cold blooded animal, like a lizard, but that would be comfortable for a warm blooded animal, like a bird. So, the conflict there really is only a conflict if you take the outdated opinion that dinosaurs were more likely lizards than birds.

So, as far as the order in which life was created, there are no real conflicts between the Bible and evolution theory; the fact that the Bible is uncannily close to evolution theory, especially with the three major epochs (sea life, dinosaurs, mammals) fitting in the same order as they lie in the Bible, and with humanity being more recent in each.

This leaves us with two other conflicts: The time issue (6-7 days vs. 15-20 billion years), and physicists' theories on the creation of the universe.

Anyway, if you look at big bang theory, it basically says that at some point in time (basically 0 time for the universe), the amount of volume taken up by all the mass in the universe was smaller than the size of an electron. That mass then suddenly combusted and spread out, eventually spreading enough to form into suns and planets.
Compare that to the first few verses of Genesis, which state that in the beginning, there was nothing, and God made a separation and separated out the earth and the heavens. Sure, it's artsy and poetic, but it makes more sense than that song by the Police about the dinosaurs. I could never understand what the hell Sting was singing about until someone explained it to me, and even then it sounds like he's singing about something else. So, really, having some artistic prose in Genesis that still sounds basically like what physicists think the early days of our current universe were like is pretty darn good for having been written a few thousand years before Newton got hit on the head and started thinking about physics.

Now we have another disparity: The Bible says that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars. Well, consider that plants first evolved almost 4 billion years ago; that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the age of the galaxy. Many of the stars in the sky hadn't fully formed yet, we may not have had a moon yet, and we may not have had as many planets in the solar system as we do now. Or maybe someone just got lazy and put plants before the sun, stars, and moon, even when they were originally the other way around. Hey, mistakes happen. I'll have to look into that one more to be sure, though.

Anyway, assuming I'm right, the only disparity left is the time issue. If I remember enough about Hebrew, they have a verb form that combines has, is, and will be - basically it's all three verb forms in one. So, you can say "I'm doing this, I've been doing this, and I'll continue to do this" in a lot fewer words. Well, from what I remember from talking to people who know more Hebrew than I do, the Torah was originally written using that verb form during the creation story, without any mention of the amount of time it took. It just said, "God created, is creating, and will continue to create in this way...." without saying how long it took (but telling it in a specific order). When Christians translated the Torah to put it into their Bible, there weren't Greek or Latin words with the equivalent verb form, so they decided to throw good translating skills out the window and go with something that sounded fancy and artsy instead. Fuggin bastards. Because of that, us Christians now study a Bible that tells us that the universe was created in 6 days (with 1 for rest), when, in actuality, the Torah, which is closer to the original, never limited the amount of time taken.

So, we have a message from thousands of years before any form of physics or biology was around telling us basically how the universe was created and the basic order in which life evolved. Kinda miraculous, huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There is no conflict between creationism and science -- many people believe that God created the world but that evolution and does happen in that world. The conflict is between Creationism and science: some people believe in Biblical or other sacred-document stories that contradict what is known from science. Unfortunately, you have adopted a version of Creationism: day-age old-earth Creationism. In the first place, micro-organisms are thought to have evolved very early, 4B-plus years ago. Multicellular creatures evolved in the sea, and later colonized land. Plants are fairly-complex multicellular structures that arrived far later. Unless you are claiming algae as 'plants,' or early bacterial colonies as plants, sea animals evolved before plants.

But you are focusing only on life. The whole order of creation in Genesis is inconsistent with what science theorizes as the order of development of matter and energy.

And this is all so useless. Those who accept science but believe that God created, for example theistic evolutionists, recognize that Genesis and the Bible as a whole (or the Torah, or the Quran) is a religious document with moral lessons -- in the words of a pope: the Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. Such folks see no need to reconcile Genesis to science via day-age interpretations because Genesis is not accepted by such people as an account of the manner nor order in which the natural world developed. Science has a problem only with those who take creation myths seriously as natural accounts.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (AnonT,)
That other thread is horrendously long, and I don't want to wade through it to see if any of this has been brought up.

Anyway, not only do I not see much of a conflict between creationism and evolution (some people will tell you that creationism tells the "why" while evolution tells the "how"), but I see evolution as more of a proof of creationism.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Static organisms that have not changed since their appearence on earth is what the conflict is about. Evolution does not preach that the organisms we see today spontaneous appeared a few thousand years ago, out of thin air.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Look at it this way:
According to evolution, plants came extremely early on the evolutionary scale, before anything we'd consider animals, having evolved almost 4 billion years ago, within a few hundred million years of the time that the first bacteria evolved.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
I see you're not quite with it. Bacteria came LONG before plants. And if we're talking about the Kingdom Plantae, it's by a billion years or two.
The archeabacteria were the first organisms to photosynthesis, infact, the chloroplasts may have once been a cyanobacteria that invaded other larger cellular organisms.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

According to evolution, the first animals evolved out of the sea, and the first major era (epoch? I think that's the word they use) of life on earth was water-based.
According to evolution, the next epoch was mostly the dinosaurs.
The last epoch was/is mammals, with humanity being an extremely recent (less than a million years old, with less than 10,000 years of "modern" man) evolution.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Here is a quick lesson for you. The Dinosaurs occupied the Mesozoic period but the first major era for land was Paleozoic, most notably the Cambrian period.

Mammal evolution covers main the Cenzoic period. We're currently at the Holocene epoch.
</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

According to creationism, plants were created very early on, before any animals.
According to creationism, the first animals created were "sea creatures". The next major set of creatures were birds. The next major set of creatures were mammals. The last major creation was humanity.

So, as far as the order in which life came about, the two disparities we have now are dinosaurs vs. birds, and what happened to bacteria and other microscopic or odd life forms.
Well, obviously, someone 5,000 years ago when the Bible was written wouldn't have understood bacteria, so they wouldn't have written it down even if they were told; and even if they did, the people copying it would have omitted it because they had no clue what it was about.
As for dinosaurs vs. birds, there's actually a growing number of paleontologists who are arguing that dinosaurs were more likely birds than reptiles.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
It's the other way round mate, paleontologists are arguing that birds are dinosaurs.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

First of all, many dinosaur skeletons contain bone structures that fit bird skeletons much more closely than lizard skeletons. Second, the fossilized tissues that led them to the conclusion that dinosaurs grew scales are actually more similar to the tissues birds use to make feathers than to the tissues lizards use to make scales (although the two types of tissue are extremely similar). Third, there's evidence from fossilized tracks that dinosaurs ran at speeds that would kill a cold blooded animal, like a lizard, but that would be comfortable for a warm blooded animal, like a bird. So, the conflict there really is only a conflict if you take the outdated opinion that dinosaurs were more likely lizards than birds.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
State some sources please.

And I'd like to point a flaw in your logic, seeing as we got dinosaur fossils long before the first bird specimens...and seeing as you came to conclusion that dinosaurs are closely to related to birds more so than reptiles, given the timeline wouldn't it be logical to assume that birds evolved FROM dinosaurs?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

So, as far as the order in which life was created, there are no real conflicts between the Bible and evolution theory; the fact that the Bible is uncannily close to evolution theory, especially with the three major epochs (sea life, dinosaurs, mammals) fitting in the same order as they lie in the Bible, and with humanity being more recent in each.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Gross generalisation, and a coincidence at best. But placing the plants before the sun doesn't quite do it for me either.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

This leaves us with two other conflicts: The time issue (6-7 days vs. 15-20 billion years), and physicists' theories on the creation of the universe.

Anyway, if you look at big bang theory, it basically says that at some point in time (basically 0 time for the universe), the amount of volume taken up by all the mass in the universe was smaller than the size of an electron. That mass then suddenly combusted and spread out, eventually spreading enough to form into suns and planets.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
The point of singularity is smaller than an electron, and it didn't combust, thats too layman a term.

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Compare that to the first few verses of Genesis, which state that in the beginning, there was nothing, and God made a separation and separated out the earth and the heavens. Sure, it's artsy and poetic, but it makes more sense than that song by the Police about the dinosaurs. I could never understand what the hell Sting was singing about until someone explained it to me, and even then it sounds like he's singing about something else. So, really, having some artistic prose in Genesis that still sounds basically like what physicists think the early days of our current universe were like is pretty darn good for having been written a few thousand years before Newton got hit on the head and started thinking about physics.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Newton was a physics buff long before that myth was invented.
And a few religions have teachings which may seem like the big bang...are their account correct as well?

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

Now we have another disparity: The Bible says that plants were created before the sun, moon, and stars. Well, consider that plants first evolved almost 4 billion years ago; that's about 1/4 to 1/3 of the age of the galaxy. Many of the stars in the sky hadn't fully formed yet, we may not have had a moon yet, and we may not have had as many planets in the solar system as we do now. Or maybe someone just got lazy and put plants before the sun, stars, and moon, even when they were originally the other way around. Hey, mistakes happen. I'll have to look into that one more to be sure, though.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
Yeah sure, mistakes happen especially when it's divinely inspired...

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by

So, we have a message from thousands of years before any form of physics or biology was around telling us basically how the universe was created and the basic order in which life evolved. Kinda miraculous, huh?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
No, a lot of cultures can match the general jist of what the history of universe or earth was like. Picking out what matches amongst the whole pile of myth isn't hard. Try harder.

[shunyadragon]

Creationism has two faces, 'Creation Science' and 'Theistic Evolution'. Both have several versions. But 'Creation Science' is the most controversial and at odds with science.

The difference between 'Thesistic Evolution and Atheistic Evolution is more a question of faith and abstract arguements on the necessity of the role of a Creator in the picture.

Do most evolutionary scientists believe in Pangea(one continent theory)? If so(I'm not a biology major but many of them have never gave me a good answer to this) why wouldn't there be humanoid species all over the world, even in Antartica and places nearly unihabitable by man today? Its not like we didn't have enough time to evolutionize, it took millions of years. Before you answer think more about it. If we all came from similar organisms why is there such diversity on our world? Why wouldn't humans have evolved into flyers, and underwater swimmers to better fit their enviroment? If you say that is stupid than give me an explanation why! The world is just to perfect to believe in evolution from single celled organisms. As a physics major I know, even with the billions of stars, this is too consequential.

[terstorm]

theophysics---the reason there aren't humanoid species all over the world is because by the time the primates and hominids that eventually became us humans evolved, the continents had long split apart and pretty much were where they are now, with allowences for sea level and uplift. Pangaea isn't a theory...it's real and can be measured through continental drift. I'm not a bio major either, but this seems rather obvious as to why each continent didn't have its own seperate human population evolve.

Humans evolved the way they did because of the environment they evolved in. they didn't fly because they developed on grasslands and the animal family they evolved from did not fly. They may have swam which is why our body hair is waterdynamic(not sure what the word i'm looking for is, but it's a theory i've heard).

The world is just to perfect NOT to believe it all came from single celled organisms. Don't forget mutations---and the fact that the first single celled organisms probably appeared nearly 4 billion years ago.

[Pooeypants]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,)
Do most evolutionary scientists believe in Pangea(one continent theory)?  If so(I'm not a biology major but many of them have never gave me a good answer to this)  why wouldn't there be humanoid species all over the world, even in Antartica and places nearly unihabitable by man today?  Its not like we didn't have enough time to evolutionize, it took millions of years.  Before you answer think more about it.  If we all came from similar organisms why is there such diversity on our world?  Why wouldn't humans have evolved into flyers, and underwater swimmers to better fit their enviroment?  If you say that is stupid than give me an explanation why!  The world is just to perfect to believe in evolution from single celled organisms.  As a physics major I know, even with the billions of stars, this is too consequential.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>
This quite simple, and if you did the slightest research before you posted, you'd know that Pangea started spliting approx. 200 million years ago. There weren't even any mammals that far back in time let alone humans...

source

[shunyadragon]

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (theophysics,)
Do most evolutionary scientists believe in Pangea(one continent theory)? If so(I'm not a biology major but many of them have never gave me a good answer to this) why wouldn't there be humanoid species all over the world, even in Antartica and places nearly unihabitable by man today? Its not like we didn't have enough time to evolutionize, it took millions of years. Before you answer think more about it. If we all came from similar organisms why is there such diversity on our world? Why wouldn't humans have evolved into flyers, and underwater swimmers to better fit their enviroment? If you say that is stupid than give me an explanation why! The world is just to perfect to believe in evolution from single celled organisms. As a physics major I know, even with the billions of stars, this is too consequential.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

There is diversity in the world because of billions of years of evolution. The survival of the gene has made life opportunistic by adapting to different evironments over time.

When the continents were connected similar species did occupy most of the land area. That was long before primates evolved. By the way this does happen in the sea that has remained mostly connected throughout earth's history after the seas first formed.

If you learn something about cosmology as a physics major you will become aware that life on earth is not considered 'too consequential' in terms of the potential of planets with life among the billions of stars.