Why are we being so humanocentric? It's extremely biased. Perhaps all the "near-humans" originated from Duros in actuality.
Joke? What joke? I see no joke. And can jokes even be born? Back on topic, seriously, why are we assuming everything comes from humanity?
Given that it is explicitly stated that at least one species (the Chiss) evolved from Human origins, and implied that any number of others did from the same cause - human sleeper ship colonization - it makes sense for Humans to represent the origin point of all these other Near-Human and Humanoid species. It's the most parsimonious explanation. If you were to posit some other species as the origin point for this massive diversification, then you have humans arrising secondarily, splitting off numerous of their own subpopulations into new species, and not incidentaly, arising to dominate the galaxy through spread and numbers in a massive way. it's overly complicated. That being said, it is certainly the case that there are Near-Human species that are more closely related to each other than they are back to Homo sapiens. There's probably a whole bunch of subgenera pockets out there. Wroonians and Pantorans would be one example.
"It's overly complicated" It is a rather large galaxy. It's going to be complicated. Besides, couldn't in theory most of the species have been "created" by the celestials or such, and then some evolved from there?
Really? Star Trek TNG's the race that was an awful episode. The female changeling seeded the milkyway with life!
That might actually make some sense, though, at least as a possibility, given what little we know about the celestials.
It's more complicated than the alternative explanation. The simplest explanation is most likely to be true, therefore we accept that one in the absence of evidence to the contrary. Yes, but they weren't created ex nihilo, they were apparently drawn from pre-existing sources. The Star Wars galaxy contains, in various places, huge chunks of Earth's biosphere, and many creatures that are only slight, slight variations on extant animals and plants. With Earth's tree of life lying at the center of Star Wars biology, and seeing at that tree only produced one sentient species naturally, it's hard to see why species wouldn't serve as the baseline in the same way as so many others. At the end of the day you have to pick something as the root of your tree. In this case picking Humans saves massively on the headaches.
Basically, all I'm trying to say is that the simplest answer doesn't have to be the answer, especially in a fictional galaxy with conflicting sources, and as such, we can never know for certain.
In protest we should all write slashfic and upload it on the same day. I call Yoda/Palpatine. Yodatine...
Well, I guess the only thing to say in response to @Mechalich is that this is only your opinion. When applied to a fictional universe which is not controlled by you, logic will get you nowhere. Burden of proof is irrelevant when none of us has access to the Holocron Continuity Database, and even if we did, it's still only populated with what various authors have written. Therefore, if it has not been written and/or published by an LFL-approved author or screenwriter, it does not exist. Drawing such conclusions based on the available evidence is called "original research" on Wookieepedia, and carries about the same weight as a warm spitball impacting the face of a debate moderator.
I thought this was relevant to the original topic of this thread - although not really relevant perhaps to the current discussion in it. http://www.tor.com/blogs/2013/03/lg...-my-life-they-should-be-in-the-fiction-i-read
I'm sorry but when they make crappy decisions and give me crappy explanations, I have no choice but to do exactly that.
