Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Are mammals "better" than reptiles? Are reptiles better than amphibians? Are we better than apes? Of course. Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives. If not, why do we have extinction?
No, mammals are not better. No, reptiles are not better. No, we are not better. We are adapted to survive in different environments. Humanity has just used its intelligence to make most of the world suitable for our survival.
Latter lives are not ‘better’. They are better adapted to survive today.
Plop a human down 1 billion years ago. They’d starve. There was nothing there to eat since we can’t eat bacteria. We’d be screwed. Does that mean 1 billion year old bacteria are better then us? Hm?
If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)
It’s because if the environment changes fast enough for that to be evolutionary necessary, odds are the species who can’t survive are dead.
Furthermore, nothing today will evolve into another animal alive today. It will be something we haven’t seen before.
And this represents a fundamental misunderstanding. There is no evolving BACK. There is just evolving. Furthermore, we ARE apes. We are a subsection of apes.
As for evolving to be like other apes, which is I’m guessing what you mean, what are the differences? Let’s take a look at a few. Humans have bigger brains. If humans were born with less, they’d be dumb and less likely to attact a mate. Other apes have different proportions of limbs and such, would probably be rejected as mates by society. Etc, etc, etc.
Do we have a bigger brain than other animals? Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.
Yes we do. Yes it very well may. Not necessarily. For us it was. But big brains have a large cost in the form of vastly increases nutritional needs. If we didn’t have access to relatively large amounts of food for our size, and our brain didn’t give us access to it, we wouldn’t have an advantage having it.
Furthermore, size isn’t everything in terms of brains. Just gonna throw that out there.
I don't mind to have myself extremely embarrassed, if you can make me. Most likely, the more we talk about an issue, the more correct I become.
Let’s hope so.
Metherion
__________________ Oh, for the love of Pete!
PETE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THIS!!!!
And, because I won't write anything I'm not willing to attach my name to...
If you were locked in a cage with an angry silverback, I'd say it would de-spine you in about 20 seconds.
Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives. If not, why do we have extinction?
Because some species -- reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds; extinction doesn't discriminate -- don't adapt to their environment quick enough.
By your logic, we'd never see a mammal go extinct. We do, so you logic is (surprise!) fatally flawed.
If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)
We are apes. And crocs don't live in environments where being a fish is all that advantageous.
Do we have a bigger brain than other animals? Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.
And yet, the bigger brain has saddled us with a number of evolutionary headaches (no pun intended) which are offset by human society.
I don't mind to have myself extremely embarrassed, if you can make me. Most likely, the more we talk about an issue, the more correct I become.
Wrong again, juvi -- and surprising as it may seem, you've managed to disappoint me. You've never pretended to be so ignorant of evolution in the past (although I never assume a Creationist is pretending; lying's a sin, after all), so how could you have possibly forgotten everythign you've allegedly learned about how the natural world (of which evolution is only one part) works?
Ironically, you are a Creationist. Or at least you are a Creationism proponent completely opposed to the ToE.
You said it yourself.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Life does evolve toward a "better" direction. Otherwise, life should start to evolve back to bacteria long time ago.
Oh, so you're saying that lizards, cheetahs, gorillas and humans are "better" than bacteria?
In what way?
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Open your eyes. Don't let your faith fool you.
You fail to take your own advice, bacteria-dependent mammal that you are.
__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
"Telling me the ToE is wrong is like telling a car mechanic
the internal combustion engine runs on magic."- Blayz
The POINT of Creationism, from an honest Creationist
"And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
No. Of course you ignore the fact that we ARE apes
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Of course.
You are wrong
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Latter lives ARE better than earlier lives.
So your life holds more value than the life of your mother and father?
Think HARD before you answer that one, "scientist". <staff edit>
Extinction occurs for obvious reasons (predation, lack of reproduction, lack of food sources, climate change, etc etc etc)
Originally Posted by juvenissun
If not, why don't we see evolution go backwards? What stops a croc evolve back to fish? Why can't we evolve back to ape? (I appreciate if can answer this one)
Dude, seriously, you have NO idea about cladistics.
Homo sapiens sapiens ARE apes.
We can't "evolve back to ape", because we ARE apes.
It really is that simple
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Do we have a bigger brain than other animals?
We have a bigger brain that some animals, granted, but not all.
Originally Posted by juvenissun
Would our brain become bigger and bigger? Is that better? Of course it is better, if it happened.
(emphasis mine)
Wait, just wait
It DID happen, whether you are a YEC or one who accepts the ToE.
"IF" it happened?
SRSLY? <staff edit>
__________________
"I do not feel obliged to believe that the same God who has endowed us with sense, reason, and intellect has intended us to forgo their use." Galileo Galilei
"Telling me the ToE is wrong is like telling a car mechanic
the internal combustion engine runs on magic."- Blayz
The POINT of Creationism, from an honest Creationist
"And yes, to prove evolution is wrong does not mean creation is right. But, the goal is just that, to prove evolution is wrong. Nothing else."
-juvenissun
Last edited by Prissanna; 2nd July 2009 at 12:02 PM.
Reason: PM sent
If you were locked in a cage with an angry silverback, I'd say it would de-spine you in about 20 seconds.
Because some species -- reptiles, amphibians, mammals, birds; extinction doesn't discriminate -- don't adapt to their environment quick enough.
By your logic, we'd never see a mammal go extinct. We do, so you logic is (surprise!) fatally flawed.
We are apes. And crocs don't live in environments where being a fish is all that advantageous.
And yet, the bigger brain has saddled us with a number of evolutionary headaches (no pun intended) which are offset by human society.
Wrong again, juvi -- and surprising as it may seem, you've managed to disappoint me. You've never pretended to be so ignorant of evolution in the past (although I never assume a Creationist is pretending; lying's a sin, after all), so how could you have possibly forgotten everythign you've allegedly learned about how the natural world (of which evolution is only one part) works?
Smart answers would only make you look more foolish.
I did learn about evolution. Because I learned, so I have that conclusion. Evolution has a direction, if it ever happened. When you see the life tree (?), you know that has to be the conclusion. There is no other way to explain it.
Why don't we evolve back to apes? Why don't Eskimos start to grow white furs and skin fat like that of the polar bears?
Smart answers would only make you look more foolish.
Ah! You're being nice by making yourself look foolish by giving dumb answers, I assume then?
I did learn about evolution.
Where?
Because I learned, so I have that conclusion. Evolution has a direction, if it ever happened. When you see the life tree (?), you know that has to be the conclusion. There is no other way to explain it.
Sure there is: you don't know what you're talking about. Which is shown here again:
Why don't we evolve back to apes?
Saying something while you know it's wrong is lying, "teacher". We are apes.
Why don't Eskimos start to grow white furs and skin fat like that of the polar bears?
Because they can survive like they are now.
__________________ William "BBR" duBois
"If there is a God, atheism must seem to Him as less of an insult than religion."
-Edmond de Goncour
No, mammals are not better. No, reptiles are not better. No, we are not better. We are adapted to survive in different environments. Humanity has just used its intelligence to make most of the world suitable for our survival.
Latter lives are not ‘better’. They are better adapted to survive today.
Plop a human down 1 billion years ago. They’d starve. There was nothing there to eat since we can’t eat bacteria. We’d be screwed. Does that mean 1 billion year old bacteria are better then us? Hm?
If multiple-cell life is not better than single-cell life, then why does it appear and developed more and more? When a multiple-cell life encountered bad environment, why does it not to evolve back to single-cell life to deal with the environment?
Of course we are better life form. Do you like to evolve back to early human? What is wrong with that evolution?
With regard to evolving "back? i think juv has a point, up to a point.
Asking "why doesnt something happen" with regard to something like "why dont eskimos grow fur" serves only a rhetorical point. We have clothes; no selective pressure to grow fur. Esp not for today's eskimos who are not into living off the land and like microwave food better than seals.
The pale skin northern europeans did evolve a bit for a northern climate, more than eskimos did actually.
There are examples of things "evolving back", if that is how one likes to put it. not back to what they were, but losing structures that took a long time to develop. Loss of limbs for example in whale, snake etc. Loss of eyes, or degeneration of eyes, like in cave fish.
Evolution goes in the direction that selective pressure pushes it. i would guess that if one had selective pressure to produce a race of humans that were short, hairy, kinda dumb and very strong, that could be done. i guess they'd look more like other apes.
Juv also has a point about "better". A mammal is more able to maintain a high level of activity than a reptile, it can live in a cold climate. so it has advantages there. The reptile can go without food wway longer than a mammal, so it has an advantage there. We have mammals and reptiles both, so there are advantages and disadvantages to each.
Where the "better' most comes into play would be in the "micro" evolution, I think.
A cow isnt better than a fish, but, a fish that can swim faster, hide better etc even in some small way and is better adapted to a specific environment than the others in its group, will have better reproductive success.
"Better" as a driving force for evolution only makes sense on that level.
If multiple-cell life is not better than single-cell life, then why does it appear and developed more and more?
Your body has about 10 times more bacterial cells on it than your own human cells. Funny how you consider everything part of 'yourself' and the useful bacteria that work in symbiosis with you don't get any credit.
Without bacteria life on earth as we know it would end. They have, and always will fill a certain niche that larger organisms simply can not fill.
They haven't stopped evolving though, the single cells that started the evolutionary chain aren't anywhere near the complexity we see in cells today.
It's a case where quality > quantity. Growing bigger isn't necessarily the best strategy.
When a multiple-cell life encountered bad environment, why does it not to evolve back to single-cell life to deal with the environment?
Evolution works with the cards it's 'dealt with'. It can't redesign from scratch. It can however adjust unnecessary parts (environmental pressure) like rudimentary organs. Whale foot bones are a splendid example. In a way this is your multi cellular going back to a single cellular phase example, just in another scale.
Of course we are better life form. Do you like to evolve back to early human? What is wrong with that evolution?
Please don't confuse complexity and certain characteristics with each other.
Early humans had way more hair but due to us humans wearing clothes there was no selective pressure anymore that hairy humans benefited. In fact we now consider it ugly so there's a reverse selection going on.
We do however still have the genes to activate that ridiculous hair growth.
So basically we do have the complexity to create hairs over all of our bodies, but it's not beneficial to us right now so we don't use it. If however we would face another ice age, new selective pressures kick in which might make activate those hair genes again.
I guess you can consider this part of your "going back to early man phase" example.
The examples you are thinking of are there, you just think too unrealistic, too big of a change as an answer.
- Ectezus
__________________ Sigmund Freud [1856-1939] (Austrian physician and pioneer psychoanalyst) said:
"It would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is a very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be."
Your body has about 10 times more bacterial cells on it than your own human cells. Funny how you consider everything part of 'yourself' and the useful bacteria that work in symbiosis with you don't get any credit.
Without bacteria life on earth as we know it would end. They have, and always will fill a certain niche that larger organisms simply can not fill.
They haven't stopped evolving though, the single cells that started the evolutionary chain aren't anywhere near the complexity we see in cells today.
It's a case where quality > quantity. Growing bigger isn't necessarily the best strategy.
Evolution works with the cards it's 'dealt with'. It can't redesign from scratch. It can however adjust unnecessary parts (environmental pressure) like rudimentary organs. Whale foot bones are a splendid example. In a way this is your multi cellular going back to a single cellular phase example, just in another scale.
Please don't confuse complexity and certain characteristics with each other.
Early humans had way more hair but due to us humans wearing clothes there was no selective pressure anymore that hairy humans benefited. In fact we now consider it ugly so there's a reverse selection going on.
We do however still have the genes to activate that ridiculous hair growth.
So basically we do have the complexity to create hairs over all of our bodies, but it's not beneficial to us right now so we don't use it. If however we would face another ice age, new selective pressures kick in which might make activate those hair genes again.
I guess you can consider this part of your "going back to early man phase" example.
The examples you are thinking of are there, you just think too unrealistic, too big of a change as an answer.
- Ectezus
I think the argument boils down to "evolution isnt true because it doesnt act the way I think it should"
, you simply deny the facts.
Linear Mode
