Moontanman

I'm not real sure what your theory is, you do use the term unique and defining complex would help, Sperm whales have the largest and most complex brains we know of, elephants are also unique in both brain size, complexity not to mention behaviors. A mormyrid (an electrical blind fish) has a larger brain to body ratio than humans not to mention complex behaviors. Unique could also use some definition, both whales and elephants are known to have language and are able to share complex information. I would argue cephalopods are smarter than we are in significant ways. Corvids as you mention are capable of some amazing behaviors and communication interaction. They are able to communicate highly complex ideas between each other not to mention read human behavior better than we can all with a very small brain. I am questioning your neutrality on this idea, to be honest I'm not sure a human can be neutral when trying to judge or compare non human intelligence with human intelligence. We have a natural bias, human chauvinism is written into our own behaviors. So far you have not listed a single way humans are unique or superior to other animals... or at the very least listed a way we can know this...

Have you considered non primate animals? Even cephalopods would seem to visualise their surroundings and can learn from watching others or even watching humans. Elephants show signs of complex thoughts, one actually speaks korean and recently a large bull african elephant actually approached game wardens for help with a bullet wound. I'm not so sure the traits you mention are restricted to humans, in fact i would say the only trait restricted to humans is the use of fire. Animals of various sorts display all the other traits of humans to some degree and maybe even be more complex thoughts than humans. The singing of whales is quite complex and is thought to contain complex information possibly even three d pictures. Cephalopods definitely communicate with patterns and colors and show quite complex emotions via various color patterns and pulses. I am I off the rails here? If so tell me and I'll give it a rest.

I'm not sure you are correct in your assertion comparing the evolution of humans to an arms race. I see it as more of a large gene pool slowly changing over time. As better adapted forms evolve the less adapted forms fail to pass on their genes and the entire gene pool changes. We see snap shots of that change in the fossil record and name the snap shots but in reality it was a more of a river where the tributaries unite to form a larger river. The tributaries don't go to war with each they merge into one. Gene flow over time is a better description than war. No doubt various hominid species coexisted and competed for resources but to suggest active aggression between the species is not supported by any data i am aware of.

My post count is meaningless, you how ever need to back up your baseless assertions... Might I suggest you break up your post into several specific posts and provide citations for your assumptions?

I would like to ask why you think it is not. You name all these attributes with no evidence other than your own claims. I simply wanted to point out humans are not the only large brained social animals not even the largest brain to body ratio. By far not the largest brains or most complex nor the most complex behaviors. You need to provide some evidence and your post smells a little like a gish gallop...

This short video give you a starting point. If you want a more complex explanation I can give you a two hour long explanation by one of the leading scientist on the subject.

Humans are not the only self aware social animals....

You make these assertions but have no evidence they are true. All religions are equal in this regard, nothing but baseless assertions. As for free will who has free will? Do the people killed in a tsunami choose to die? Does the victim of a murder have free will? Jesus didn't die, he had a bad weekend then went to heaven, if he had stayed dead it might have meant something. You've made a lot of assertions here that need evidence, do you have any? Your holy book is the claim that needs evidence, it is not evidence... This a basic truth about religion: "Religion evaporates in the light of critical inquiry much like the morning dew in the light of the rising sun..."

Citation?

I think it's called the cube square law, there are real limits to how big an organism can get before it requires a radical change in it's form. Think of it this way, if a 2 meter man weighs in at 200lbs a 4 meter man of the same proportions would weigh in at around 1600 lbs but he would only have 4 times the surface area. Scaling up something results in real problems, this is even true for non living things. A piece of granite has a practical limit to how big it can be before it collapses under it's own weight. On islands reptiles tend to get bigger while mammals that are normally large get smaller. Examples would be komodo dragons and pygmy elephants..

I guess a working definition of superior is needed...

Are trying to say that order cannot arise spontaneously?

I'm not sure I follow you, you said "If you mean a being superior to us, then yes" How does technology mean superior?

Superior technology doesn't mean superior beings. We have technology that humans 5000 years ago couldn't even conceive of and yet they were still humans and only our technology sets us apart...

None of this gets you to a god much less the Abrahamic god or Jesus... Before you postulate Jesus you have to show evidence for gods in general. So far you nor anyone else has shown any empirical evidence for a god. Feelies do not a god make... BTW WLC is a dishonest sack of steaming monkey excrement...

So far you have not asserted anything science based...

I don't think Oceania was ever a continent in the same way that north america is a continent... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceania It would seem the term continent is a bit arbitrary after all... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continent

Can you supply a link to that assertion? I've kept a lot of octopus in my day and the only thing hard in them is their beak...

Is this what you are alluding to? http://www.livescience.com/57927-new-zealand-part-of-eighth-continent.html

He is just another ignorant troll who thinks that asserting something often enough make it true...

Why would you expect tools to be left laying around and what kind of tools are you talking about?

No, it is your responsibility to back up your assertions. I would suggest you read the rules of the forum.. Do you really think that link backs up your baseless assertions? I would suggest you list the passages that support your assertions..

I disagree you keep on making all sorts of assertions but so far all the evidence you have presented is nil. I looked up the word and my usage is correct.

That is quite an assertion, I think it needs to be backed up with some evidence...