New Earth like Planet Discovered

[Clint]

No it doesn't. You don't know which species were vital to intelligence and which ones weren't. And you can't say exactly what order or what the nature of each evolutionary step absolutely had to be. And besides, you said yourself right here, right now that the link doesn't have to be exactly the same, just similar enough to do the job. Since you don't know how similar these links would need to be,or even if they're necessary, you can't argue about needing "exactly this or exactly that".

You obviously know nothing of general psychology. In order to take something away, something very similar needs to be added. Since nobody knows what species were vital in the development and evolution of intelligence, then it's safe to say that in order to aviod the risk, every species that ever existed needs to be accounted for. If you're missing one, that could seriously screw up the entire evolutionary chain, and send intelligence back millions of years.

As for this argument, I'm really tired of repeating myself, as well as hearing your ridiculous double-talk, so how about we both agree to just shut the hell up already?

[espritduo]

You obviously know nothing of general psychology.

Not a single word that has been argued in this entire thread has had anything to do with psychology, and if you think it has, then you're the one with no idea of what psychology is. Psychology deals with what happens after an intelligent mind has already been created. Our argument deals with everything that has happened before that point.

In order to take something away, something very similar needs to be added.

Says who? Quote the scientific law that states this, or shut up.

Since nobody knows what species were vital in the development and evolution of intelligence, then it's safe to say that in order to aviod the risk, every species that ever existed needs to be accounted for.

No, it's the exact opposite conclusion. If you don't know the value of the constants in an equation(in this case, the equation of the evolution of life), you can't just make them up and assume what their values should be or should not be, or even whether they are constants or not. You have to assume the constant as a variable, by definition. In other words, when talking about the equation of the evolution of life, the majority of the links are variables with no definite answer, and should not be regarded specifically and assigned statistical weights when talking about the statistical probability of life evolving in general. Any number you'd give them would be some wild guess with no value whatsoever, like say, a "multi-googol".

If you're missing one, that could seriously screw up the entire evolutionary chain, and send intelligence back millions of years.

And...? So what if intelligence gets set back a million years? That's a drop in the bucket in terms of evolutionary time. The dinosaurs would have gone extinct 66 million years ago instead of 65 million. Big whoop.

As for this argument, I'm really tired of repeating myself, as well as hearing your ridiculous double-talk, so how about we both agree to just shut the hell up already?

I have never used double talk once in any of my arguments. I've maintained a consistent chain of reasoning and arguments that you have just as consistently ignored or refused to believe. Everything I've said are simple scientific facts that you should've already been well aware of. You, however, have been wheedling out of, ignoring, and purposefully misinterpreting every argument I've given, just to defend a position that has been proven not defensible. I'll agree to shut the hell up when you stop evading my points and insulting me with high-handed claims of a superiority you don't have. Just admit that your original "idea" or whatever you want to call it was based on poorly thought-out and unresearched claims and I'll be happy. You don't have to agree with me at all on the basic premise that we may or may not be alone in the universe, that's a philosophical issue that has no absolute right or wrong answer at this current time. All you have to do is agree that your reasons for believing it were incorrect and poorly thought-out, as well as arrogantly self-righteous.