While the tendency is that an earlier species will eventually disappear, it is not in fact a necessity. Homo erectus lived during the same time as its evolved for heidelbergensis. erectus in Java may have actually lived during the same time as early Homo sapien. Evolution does not infer a need for change to survive, it could also show a change to better fit into a niche that is not filled by another species. Darwins finches for example. The common finch is not gone, and the original finch species may still very well still exist, but the other species evolved to fill different niches.

My understanding is that in order to be classified as an ape not having a tail is kinda important. Humans being apes do not have a tail so to speak. There are cases where flesh and nerve can continue to create a tail like appendage. Humans and Chimps last common ancestor is around 6-7 million years ago. So Chimps have had just as long to evolve into what we see today as humans have. Gorillas and Orangutan longer. There are apes that are relatively small. Gibbons, I believe, are less then 100lbs. Which hurts the idea that large apes would have little or no use for a tail. I also think to say we evolved from rats is a bit far. We evolved from early small mammals which are thought to have been able to survive with less oxygen in burrows.

I think that philosophy and logic should both be taught at the high school level. I also think religion should be taught in high school, but it should be multiple religions and the history behind them. Historically speaking teaching people the similarities between different types of religions could help end religious persecution. Knowing the history of religion can also keep us from repeating the mistakes that people have made in the past.

Skyhook, as far as I have seen thus far, you seem to be an intelligent person, and philosophically interesting. I pose a question to you. Can you determine whether or not we do in fact "perceive reality?" without clearly defining what reality is. Without having a clear definition of reality, you allow people to use their perception and understanding of the term in answering the question. If you had posed this question with a clear cut definition of reality then we could answer more easily.

I do not believe in a world of peace. It is not only human nature, but the natural order of the world to consist of chaos. The level at which natural chaos (as funny as that sounds) exists and is different at any given place or time. But none the less, chaos is part of the natural order of things. We can however cause change in how we as a species, and as a society effect this chaos/the world. I do believe with human nature being as it is, war will sometimes be a necessity. It is up to us to determine whether or not it is at a given time. At times when it is I thank god that we have a military powerhouse, with people who are brave and willing to give up so much for their country. It is also up to us to learn from the past and history so we do not repeat its mistakes. Causality, study evolution, early hominids, other species on this planet like ants. Their is more to war than people think, and people have the right to think as they will. But, mind control really. You sound like a communist/hippie. Just because you don't like war and obviously have issues with governments (that last part is kind of an assumption) doesn't mean people are not truly free. You can do anything you want, with in physical reason, but seeing as everyone else being free, and since we set up rules and regulations that to some extent people agree with, then people will react in a way that follows said rules, or in a way that they feel they should. Those who are free, are free to react to situations others place them in. People are in fact free, we only choose to act within the norms or to follow the rules. We all make decisions on how to act based on what we think the reaction will be.