[titzer]

I introduced it as a strawman, just trying to be terse. You embraced it to say that we must be at some kind of pinnacle to be able to make moral judgments. I started by pointing out facts; despite the perjorative term "bastards", it's pretty undeniable that humans have pretty much decimated every other form of life that is either a competitor or not a domesticated food source. As for "blind", that's not a moral judgment, whereas "immoral" clearly is. I admitted that both are my opinion, not fact.

[airstrike]

Of all the species mentioned in this thread, only one can sit in front of a computer and type out their opinions about evolution. So, yeah, we're the pinnacle of evolution at least as far as Earth is concerned.

[nkrisc]

That's a very anthropocentric metric to use, it's no surprise we're the best at it.

Whales are the largest animals alive today, so perhaps they're the pinnacle of evolution.

Implying there's a "pinnacle" of evolution implies evolution has a goal or intended outcome, which it does not.

[airstrike]

We could kill any animal on Earth effortlessly. We’re the fittest. From an evolutionary standpoint I’d say we won. I’m not saying we’re better, but arguing that humans aren’t the most advanced species really serves no purpose other than pedantically pointing out “many other ways” in which we can define pinnacle. You know what the parent meant.

[nkrisc]

My point, and I'm not just being pedantic, is that there is nothing to win.

Humans are the most advanced species? By which metric? Intelligence? Perhaps. Strength? No. Sheer numbers? No. Impact on the environment? Arguably (plants, though not a single species, would probably win that). You might as well say we're the most advanced species because we're the only one that cares enough to give ourselves a trophy for it.

Evolution is not a game to be won nor a process with an end or a goal. We weren't here before, we're here now, and we likely won't be here forever. We're ephemeral.