[confluence]

Just because I said that people weren't special - it does not follow that all people for all jobs are equivalent.

If you look at the development of any theory or invention you'll notice that there are multiple origins that converge to a single feature (just like - wait for it - EVOLUTION!).

Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place.

[crusso]

Any one individual is not special as there always others who could've taken their place.

If that were the case, then history would be one steady series of progressions that would look the same from isolated geographic region to isolated geographic region and from culture to culture.

The American Indians would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Europeans. The Australian Aborigines would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Chinese. The Incans would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the British.

They didn't. We have records that tell us about the individuals and groups who had ideas that significantly affected the course of history. Your argument is completely contradicted by even a cursory examination of the historical record.

[confluence]

> The American Indians would have developed in a similar manner and pace as the Europeans

Wrong.

Just because I indicated that others may take there place - it does not follow that anyone - anywhere could. For Einstein - another European physicist could've taken his place. For the Romans - barbarians could've taken their place (and did - remember the Mongols?). For America - the Spanish could've taken their place (too bad they lost the Spanish Armada thanks to a war started by trying to build an empire using the wealth of silver mined in South America which weakened their North American position and give Louisiana to the French who themselves were weakened by war and sold it to the Americans).

Do you know why? EXTREME PATH DEPENDENCE since all things are the accumulation of local ideas/effects - as per causality/evolution.