the meaning of life

One of the major misconceptions about atheists is that we have little or no respect for life - human or otherwise. Because we think that all life is some accidental freak of nature there is no meaning or purpose to it all, and it is all pretty worthless. We cannot possibly gain the same enjoyment and fulfillment from living that believers do. We care nothing for the suffering of others, as they're all just wormfood in the end.

What fresh lunacy is this? (to quote Harry Hill, british (bad) comedian.)

Yes, life on this planet is a lucky accident, probably similar to countless other emergences of life on other planets. No, there is no particular purpose or meaning behind it all - why should there be? What right do we have to consider ourselves special?

However, as an atheist, I consider all (well, most) life to be sacred (if I can use such a word). Atheists know that we only get one chance at life. This is it. This is all you get. No reincarnation, no heaven or hell, no second chances. You only get one go, and to mess it up or waste it is the most terrible thing.

Make the most of your brief span of awareness. Educate yourself so that you can see the wonders of the universe for what they are, without the fog of religious belief. Swim in the Indian Ocean. Watch the sunset at Uluru (Ayer's Rock). Tickle a baby. Climb a tree. Learn to unicyle. Massage your partner. Take up pottery.

Gain pleasure from making other peoples' lives better. Some people live in appalling conditions, earning in a week what you might earn in one hour (if that). Support an orphanage.

Some theists seem to have this bizarre notion that atheists are sad, dreary, selfish people who only ever consider themselves, have no concern for anyone else and mope around all day wondering how they can get to Heaven without having to believe in Jesus and be nice to people. (Funny just how wrong some people can be, isn't it?)

I am often asked "Why bother? If life is a meaningless accident, with no ultimate goal or purpose, why not just kill yourself now? Why not even go on a killing spree and end the worthless lives of everybody else? What stops you ending it all?" To which I would reply - "Have you ever built a snowman?" After all, snowmen are ephemeral objects, soon to be melted in the sun. A snowman has no ultimate purpose or goal, and in a few weeks there will be no trace of it's ever existing. We build snowmen because all of us, theists and atheists, live here and now. In the context of our own brief mortal lives, we are able to enjoy this life and gain pleasure from ultimately pointless acts. It is fun to build a snowman, or climb a mountain, or watch the sunset, or go for a long cycle ride in the countryside. The purpose of these things is not "out there" somewhere, waiting to be achieved - the meaning is in what it means to ourselves. I am not overly concerned about some future fifty billion years from now, but I am concerned about the future of humanity here, now and for the generations that follow. That is the context of a mortal life, and that is why I "bother" to live and damn well have fun while I'm doing it.

There is no meaning to life itself. There is no purpose to the universe. You can, however, give life meaning through your actions. Make the world a better place for yourself, your contemporaries and your descendents.

Atheists can, and often do, lead a full and enjoyable life. We know that this is all we get, and all that everybody else gets, so we do the best that we can for ourselves and others. It's no good praying for people dying in a third-world country - there's no God to help them, only people. If people don't do it, nobody else will. I am sickened whenever there is a major disaster in the world, and some politician or church leader says that the victims desperately need our prayers. No they don't. They need someone to go and dig them out of the rubble, comfort the bereaved, find out why the plane crashed, bring them food and medicine. Prayer is not going to do that - people are. There is an orphanage in Kenya, called the Diani Childrens Village. The kids there have no family at all, and live in, well... a hovel. Do they need prayers and Bibles, or do they need love, money, food, clothes and education?

As an atheist, I consider all life to be sacred. A life and a mind are terrible things to waste. Make the most of them while you can, and help others do the same.

Is that such a Bad Thing?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Adrian Barnett

Well said.

What right do we have to consider ourselves special?

I DO consider humans rather special, along with a variety of other living organisms.

Special, because we have evolved into what we are today, not by the hand of some omnipotent being, but rather all on our own.

If we started out as pond scum and are now rational intelligent beings, that's special!

While I like Q's perspective it doesn't reflect how 'special' was intended. Religionists like to see the human form as perfect and modelled in the image of a god and since it was specially designed by a god then of course it is special and more important than anything else in the universe. That of course is simple arrogance.

And while I am pleased that I am alive and that I exist I am also very aware of the severe limitations and defficiencies of the human form - aging and death being the top 2 items on my list.

I like that we have evolved thus far but I am more interested in how we are going to evolve further and how I can survive to be a part of that adventurous future.

Living cells are only formed from other living cells.

Then how was the first living cell created? Just a question about evolution.

Well no, that's a question about abiogenesis.

Try this http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm#Origins for some current theories on how the first life began.

All people have the right to believe in anything they wish as long as they respect others beliefs as well.

Why must we respect the beliefs of others if we think their beliefs are nonsense? Why not be honest?

Well no, that's a question about abiogenesis.

Try this http://members.aol.com/darwinpage/abiogenesis.htm#Origins for some current theories on how the first life began.

Are they proven? It doesn't matter if it is a theory. It has to be proven for someone to believe.

Cris: Why must we respect the beliefs of others if we think their beliefs are nonsense? Why not be honest?
*************
M*W: Well said!

Because we think that all life is some accidental freak of nature there is no meaning or purpose to it all, and it is all pretty worthless. We cannot possibly gain the same enjoyment and fulfillment from living that believers do. We care nothing for the suffering of others, as they're all just wormfood in the end.

This is not in support of atheism but rather belief, the common good so to speak. For that you have no reason to believe life to be precious, you have faith.


However, as an atheist, I consider all (well, most) life to be sacred (if I can use such a word). Atheists know that we only get one chance at life. This is it.

The argument used by Paul is such people woul live, drink and die. But if you look at in another perspective: you will always value the experience of your own life more than another's.


I am often asked "Why bother? If life is a meaningless accident, with no ultimate goal or purpose, why not just kill yourself now? Why not even go on a killing spree and end the worthless lives of everybody else? What stops you ending it all?" To which I would reply - "Have you ever built a snowman?" After all, snowmen are ephemeral objects, soon to be melted in the sun. A snowman has no ultimate purpose or goal, and in a few weeks there will be no trace of it's ever existing. We build snowmen because all of us, theists and atheists, live here and now.

This seems circular. It is true that you might build snowmen to live here and now, but you have not given any evidence of why this instant in time is precious.

786,

Are they proven? It doesn't matter if it is a theory. It has to be proven for someone to believe.

One doesn’t have to believe that scientific theories are true. They simply offer credible explanations of phenomena that fit observations.

But isn’t your statement nonsense, many people believe religious claims where there are no proofs. Or are you suggesting we should have a dual standard where religionists are immune?

Okinrus,

For that you have no reason to believe life to be precious, you have faith.

Webster: precious - of great value or high price.

I consider my own life of more value than anything I can imagine. It is therefore extremely precious to me. This is fact and has nothing to do with faith. It then follows that I would imagine that all reasonable people should see their own lives as precious. To me this makes all life precious.

786,



One doesn’t have to believe that scientific theories are true. They simply offer credible explanations of phenomena that fit observations.

But isn’t your statement nonsense, many people believe religious claims where there are no proofs. Or are you suggesting we should have a dual standard where religionists are immune?

I am not talking of religions here, just about the theories. Anyways, you said "One doesn't have to believe that scientific theories are true. They simply offer credible explanations of phenomena that fit observation."

So basically you have "faith" in these theories. Then how can you say "nonsense" to other's belief, for others also have "faith" in their religions or whatever may be the case. It doesn't matter that if their belief is in God or not. Because they have "faith" in God which is not proven, which is the same as having "faith" in a theory which is not proven.

Let me again say, my point, is not to debate on God exist or not. Just that you also have "faith". You have no right to call others belief "nonsense" when you don't know the "truth" yourself.

But I don't want to talk about religions here. Now let me ask you, how was the first cell formed? Please give me the information, on this board which you think is credible, becuase I don't have time to read all of those theories.

The priests used to say that faith can move mountains, and nobody believed them. Today the scientists say that they can level mountains, and nobody doubts them.

A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death.

Truth does not demand belief. Scientists do not join hands every Sunday, singing, yes, gravity is real! I will have faith! I will be strong! I believe in my heart that what goes up, up, up must come down, down. down. Amen! If they did, we would think they were pretty insecure about it.

To rest one's case on faith means to concede that reason is on the side of one's enemies- that one has no rational arguments to offer.

786,

So basically you have "faith" in these theories.

Faith means believing something is true without evidence.

As I said and which you have pointed out that I said – "One doesn't have to believe that scientific theories are true. They simply offer credible explanations of phenomena that fit observation."

Then how can you say "nonsense" to other's belief, for others also have "faith" in their religions or whatever may be the case.

Because that isn’t what I said. My comment referred to your assertion ”It has to be proven for someone to believe.” and clearly many people believe things that are not proven. Your assertion is simply nonsense.

It doesn't matter that if their belief is in God or not. Because they have "faith" in God which is not proven, which is the same as having "faith" in a theory which is not proven.

You appear to be quite confused about theism and science. Theists believe that a god exists. They believe that the statement “a god exists” is true. This is entirely different to science that attempts to explain phenomena fully aware that such theories may need alteration or might be found false later.

Just that you also have "faith". You have no right to call others belief "nonsense" when you don't know the "truth" yourself.

You are trying very hard to claim I said things that I haven’t. I have clearly pointed out that the current state of science is not claiming any truths about the start of life but is offering credible explanations based on current knowledge of how life might have began.

Now let me ask you, how was the first cell formed? Please give me the information, on this board which you think is credible, becuase I don't have time to read all of those theories.

If you were truly interested in the answer then you would make an effort to read the scientific findings. If you don’t want to make the effort then I’m not sure why I should do the work for you. Follow the links I provided since they have already simplified the issues for the layman such as you. But be aware that there isn't a meaningful simplistic answer to your simplistic question. You need to understand some of the science and the issues involved before your question can be answered.

(Q),

Special, because we have evolved into what we are today, not by the hand of some omnipotent being, but rather all on our own.

How did we evolve all on our own?

If we started out as pond scum and are now rational intelligent beings, that's special!

IF being the operative word.

Jan Ardena.

I consider my own life of more value than anything I can imagine. It is therefore extremely precious to me. This is fact and has nothing to do with faith.

It may be fact that you believe, but it's also fact that people believe in God. If neither provide evidence, then what is the difference between your belief and theirs?


It then follows that I would imagine that all reasonable people should see their own lives as precious. To me this makes all life precious.

No, it does not really follow, because someone could consider their own life precious while other's are not.

You are trying very hard to claim I said things that I haven’t. I have clearly pointed out that the current state of science is not claiming any truths about the start of life but is offering credible explanations based on current knowledge of how life might have began.


Why must we respect the beliefs of others if we think their beliefs are nonsense? Why not be honest?

I think you did say that other's beliefs are nonsense. Look above.So it isn't me who added on to your words.

Ok as for the proven part. I meant, to believe as a fact. Theories can be disaproved, the the Spontaneous Generation theory. I guess I put it in wrong words.

How did we evolve all on our own?

Is that supposed to be funny or you really don't know. If the latter, why do you argue against evolution?

IF being the operative word.

True, but can you find reason to believe otherwise without the need to simply say, "God did it?"

I didn't think so.

786 and okincus :
Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof.

I do not feel obliged to believe that God who endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect, had intended us to not use them.(sarcasm)

as a atheist I have belief that there is no god/god's nor devil's or demon's
and that life is precious.
and that we are all equal, what ever colour creed or race or religion we are and that no person has the right to condemn or surpress other's.
and that we should spend our live's making sure life is good for all, and live in joy and harmony. this is free will

(Q)

Is that supposed to be funny or you really don't know.

No its not meant to be funny, How did we do it all on our own?

If the latter, why do you argue against evolution?

Darwinistic evolution does not state how "we did it all on our own", it doesn't even state that "we did it".

IF being the operative word.

True, but can you find reason to believe otherwise without the need to simply say, "God did it?"

Easy, life comes from life it is a proven fact.
There is no demonstrable evidence which supports the concept that matter causes life to appear.
There is no reason to believe in something for which there is zero evidence like life spontaneosly generating from complex particles which came from nothing.

Jan Ardena.

There is no demonstrable evidence which supports the concept that matter causes life to appear.
There is no reason to believe in something for which there is zero evidence like life spontaneosly generating from complex particles which came from nothing.

Ah yes, as I suspected - you know little about evolution. Thanks.

There is no demonstrable evidence which supports the concept that matter causes life to appear.
There is no reason to believe in something for which there is zero evidence like life spontaneosly generating from complex particles which came from nothing.

Ah yes, as I suspected - you know little about evolution. Thanks.

Oh, Well you think you know a lot. Doesn't matter if it is the Evolution theory or any other.

Where did the first living cell come from? How was the first living cell formed?

Okinrus,

It may be fact that you believe,

NO. It is a fact that I consider my life to be precious. There is no belief involved.

but it's also fact that people believe in God. If neither provide evidence, then what is the difference between your belief and theirs?

Mine is a fact not a belief. Your comparison is not valid.

No, it does not really follow, because someone could consider their own life precious while other's are not.

My operative words were ”To me”, “should” and “reasonable”. From my perspective I consider life precious because of my naturalistic worldview.

The super-naturalists often consider their lives subservient to some deity or universal order; that is their problem not mine.

The opening post was arguing for the atheist perspective not from the viewpoint of life being objectively precious. Although I think it would be of value to the human race if we all saw it that way.

Laboratory experiments show that phospholipid molecules can spontaneously assemble into membrane structures; cells - natural selection weeds out the cells with the least efficient systems of replication.

http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/membrane_intro.htm

Laboratory experiments show that phospholipid molecules can spontaneously assemble into membrane structures; cells - natural selection weeds out the cells with the least efficient systems of replication.

http://cellbio.utmb.edu/cellbio/membrane_intro.htm

It talks of the cell membrane.

Go read the Cell Theory. It clearly states that living cells come from pre-existing living cells. This is a proven theory.

So if a living-cell comes from another living-cell then where did the first cell come from? It couldn't have been made by any natural instance because that will contradict the Cell theory, which is proven.

Go read the Cell Theory. It clearly states that living cells come from pre-existing living cells. This is a proven theory.

So what? Are you trying to tell me that cells of today are the same as cells which formed billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the environment on Earth is the same today as it was billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that DNA today contains the same blueprint it had billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the chemical composition of Earths oceans were not filled with protein chains and enzymes that no longer exist?

So if a living-cell comes from another living-cell then where did the first cell come from?

I already told you - pay attention.

Go read the Cell Theory. It clearly states that living cells come from pre-existing living cells. This is a proven theory.

So what? Are you trying to tell me that cells of today are the same as cells which formed billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the environment on Earth is the same today as it was billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that DNA today contains the same blueprint it had billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the chemical composition of Earths oceans were not filled with protein chains and enzymes that no longer exist?

So if a living-cell comes from another living-cell then where did the first cell come from?

I already told you - pay attention.

Just as I thought "So what?". You disregard the proven things. I think I got my point through. So I don't care what you believe. My advice to you is, to believe in the proven theories, then later if their are theories out there, believe them. But don't believe them when they contradict proven theories.

You disregard the proven things.

I have done no such thing. I have attempted to switch on the little light in your brain but alas there is no one home. You appear to think that the Earth today is what it was billions of years ago and make comparisons accordingly.

I think I got my point through.

Yes, you've shown us your thinking is one dimensional.

So I don't care what you believe.

No one asked you to believe in anything - just use your head for a change.

But don't believe them when they contradict proven theories.

Cell theory is the theory of cells as they exist TODAY!!!

Sheeesh!

786,

So what's your evidence that shows where the first cell came from?

You disregard the proven things.

I have done no such thing. I have attempted to switch on the little light in your brain but alas there is no one home. You appear to think that the Earth today is what it was billions of years ago and make comparisons accordingly.

I think I got my point through.

Yes, you've shown us your thinking is one dimensional.

So I don't care what you believe.

No one asked you to believe in anything - just use your head for a change.

But don't believe them when they contradict proven theories.

Cell theory is the theory of cells as they exist TODAY!!!

Sheeesh!

By Evolution we evolved from monkies. Monkies cells also come from pre-existing cell. All living things have living-cell which come from other living-cells. This theory is not about us only, but of everything.

786,

So what's your evidence that shows where the first cell came from?

I don't have evidence. I am only asking for your evidence.

786

All living things have living-cell which come from other living-cells.

So, according to you the first living cells came from... ?

786,

I don't have evidence. I am only asking for your evidence.

Does that mean that you don't know how life originated on this planet?

786,

“ By Evolution we evolved from monkies. Monkies cells also come from pre-existing cell. ”


Well no - monkeys evolved on a parrallel path to humans. But I understand your drift. If you take that idea to its logical conclusion you will see that each life form arose from something simpler. The history of cells also shows that earlier cells were also quite simpler. You will eventually reach a point where there was a transition from inorganic molecules into animated molecules that we have arbitrarily called life. But such molecules or early cells would have been fundamntally different to modern cells.

786,



Does that mean that you don't know how life originated on this planet?

Well there's always the concept of God.

Hey 786 - why don't you just plagiarize another website? You seem to have no problem with that.

And don't forget to pray to your god for forgiveness afterwards.

As an atheist, I consider all life to be sacred.

what about the ones who dont?

lets forget about divine issues. the thing with atheism that confuses me is that there does not seem to be a general consensus among them. with the statement you made above, you deserve respect and you have mine.

but what about the atheists who do not believe that all life is sacred? how can anyone contradict them if there is no law (bear in mind what maybe law in your country may not be in mine)? who is to say they are wrong? what if someone claims that they are "natural born killers", as in the movie, who has the right to stop them if it is their calling? maybe humans evolved for the purpose of another form of superior life to evolve and if we dont destroy ourselves that would never materialize?

you can do all the things you mentioned with any belief. religion (anyone) does not blind/distract/fog/etc anyone. it is the mind that does that.

a philospher (the name seems to escape me right now, STM ;) ) once was asked if he believed in god. his response was that if god didnt exist then it didnt really matter, but if he did, what was there to lose by believing in him. because in the end you die.

"live your life as though you were to live forever, prepare for death as though you were to die tomorrow" -- not mine.

now i am just rambling, sorry :p .

basically, what i am asking is: is there a general guideline among atheists?

Hey 786 - why don't you just plagiarize another website? You seem to have no problem with that.

And don't forget to pray to your god for forgiveness afterwards.

Sorry man, I should've just posted the link. I made a mistake. Who doesn't?(Except God, if you believe, but you don't so leave it)

knife:
There are two broad categories of atheism -

"Positive" (or "strong" or "hard") atheism and "Negative" (or "weak" or "soft") atheism.

A "Positive atheist" will say "God X does not exist", whereas a "Negative atheist" will say "I do not believe God X exists" - there is a subtle but important difference.

Some (if not all) agnostics may also be considered "negative atheists", as they are not theists (there is an overlap between agnosticism and weak atheism). Agnostics (it means "without knowledge") consider the question of God to be unanswerable - there may be a God, or there may not, but we have no way of ever determining the truth of the matter. Occasionally atheists will refer to themselves as agnostics - the term is often more socially acceptable in a strongly religious region, as some theists have an extremely negative view of atheism and automatically assume that all atheists are "positive" atheists.

Depending on the definition of the God in question, the atheist may be either "positive", "negative" or agnostic. Many theists will also have the same reaction towards the deities of other religions. For example, if you give a self-contradictory definition of your God, I will say that it certainly does not exist (like a square circle), but if some group on the other side of the world has a God that I have never even heard of, I am still atheistic towards it as I simply have no belief in it. In that sense, many Christians are also atheists - they just believe in one more God than I do.

as for atheist who dont respect life, I would find that very hard to believe, as atheist come to there conclusion's, about life by sense, reason, and intellect, and therefore would believe life to be sacred, to be atheist is to be humanist.
the next is a quote from the atheist/humanist manifesto:We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is autonomous and situational needing no theological or ideological sanction. Ethics stems from human need and interest.
and this, critical intelligence, infused by a sense of human caring, is the best method that humanity has for resolving problems. Reason should be balanced with compassion and empathy and the whole person fulfilled.
the law you talk about, is in the mind of an atheist, I'm sorry to repeat myself however, we are controlled by our own sense, reason, and intellect, that all life is precious.

(Q),

Ah yes, as I suspected - you know little about evolution. Thanks.

Well seeing as you know about (Darwinistic) evolution to the point where you accept it as fact, please enlighten me How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Farenheit 451,

Science is proof without certainty; Religion is certainty without proof.

When we talk about science on this board, we refer to the method of obtaining a particular type of knowledge, not a way of life.
Religion is a way of life teaching the human animal how to attain good human qualities, who/what we are, where we came from, who/what God is, who/what we are in relation to God, how we came to be in this position, what we can achieve in the light of this knowledge. How we should conduct ourselves in this world with regard to the application and receipt of social, economic, political and gratification of senses.
To sum up, if a man is digging a hole to plant potatoes, the part of that whole action which comprises of the “scientific method” is very small and limited in comparison to the way he chooses to live his life.
Therefore you cannot, in all seriousness compare the two subject matters.

Cris,

It is a fact that I consider my life to be precious

Okinros,

but it's also fact that people believe in God. If neither provide evidence, then what is the difference between your belief and theirs

Cris,

Mine is a fact not a belief. Your comparison is not valid

The fact that you consider your own life more valuable than anything you can imagine is purely a subjective belief, as you cannot prove to anyone, including yourself, that it is so. Thus it is no different than the fact that someone believes in God or considers God to be real.
The comparison is, in my opinion, valid

Jan Ardena.

How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Good. I'm glad you got around to reading that link I provided and understanding how it works.

We evolved all by ourselves without the need of gods. Simple, huh?

Go read the Cell Theory. It clearly states that living cells come from pre-existing living cells. This is a proven theory.

So what? Are you trying to tell me that cells of today are the same as cells which formed billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the environment on Earth is the same today as it was billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that DNA today contains the same blueprint it had billions of years ago? Are you trying to tell me that the chemical composition of Earths oceans were not filled with protein chains and enzymes that no longer exist?

So if a living-cell comes from another living-cell then where did the first cell come from?

I already told you - pay attention.

Here, lets have a look at the previous cells. What came first bacteria or humans? What came first bacteria or monkies? What came first fish or bacteria? All of us know the answer is bacteria.

The cell theory applies to the bacteria aswell.

Cell theory only applies to cells that exist today, not billions of year ago.

And besides, the formation of cells back then was of a chemical evolution, not cellular evolution.

Cell theory only applies to cells that exist today, not billions of year ago.

And besides, the formation of cells back then was of a chemical evolution, not cellular evolution.

Got proof! :) (like Got Milk, just a joke)

Farenheit 451,



When we talk about science on this board, we refer to the method of obtaining a particular type of knowledge, not a way of life.
Religion is a way of life teaching the human animal how to attain good human qualities, who/what we are, where we came from, who/what God is, who/what we are in relation to God, how we came to be in this position, what we can achieve in the light of this knowledge. How we should conduct ourselves in this world with regard to the application and receipt of social, economic, political and gratification of senses.
To sum up, if a man is digging a hole to plant potatoes, the part of that whole action which comprises of the “scientific method” is very small and limited in comparison to the way he chooses to live his life.
Therefore you cannot, in all seriousness compare the two subject matters.

Jan Ardena.

your arguement is not with me but the originator of the quote

"Science has proof without any certainty. Creationists have certainty without any proof".
A Quotation by Author Professor Ashley Montague, Ph.D. who wrote Frontiers of Anthropology, and touching, also The Elephant Man: A Study in Human Dignity and here's another quote "the deepest personal defeat suffered by human beings is constituted by the difference between what one was capable of becoming and what one has in fact become".

I am only guilty, of the using the wrong word, but that was how I picked it up.

(Q)

Good. I'm glad you got around to reading that link I provided and understanding how it works.

That link has nothing to do with my question;

You said;

Laboratory experiments show that phospholipid molecules can spontaneously assemble into membrane structures; cells - natural selection weeds out the cells with the least efficient systems of replication

That is not entirely correct. The reason spontaneously assembling occurs is to due to the thermodynamics,if the phospholipids are in a water (or other polar solution), not all by themselves.

We evolved all by ourselves without the need of gods. Simple, huh?

This answer is not satisfactory, could you please answer the question. How did we evolve all by ourselves?

Jan Ardena.