Marsupials Are 'Far More Evolved' Than Other Mammals, Even Humans

[dlamberth]

"A new study challenges the idea that marsupials are more 'primitive' than mammals by showing their development has changed more than mammals since they last shared an ancestor."

Marsupials Are 'Far More Evolved' Than Other Mammals, Even Humans

 

[JohnEmmett]

The animal realm is below the human realm

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

I guess it makes sense in some ways, since marsupial animals, by the fact of keeping their young closer during their developmental stages, allow them to grow in a (relatively) more safe environment, whereas mammals just kind of... drop and let them go from the off.

Although it seems there's a trade off in that marsupials are not as great at socializing as placental mammals are. I wonder if that's got to do with the keeping the young practically close at hand (marsupials) vs the young being a bit further from them (placental mammals).

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Although... man, I do hate that phrase. There is no 'more evolved'. It's not a thing.

 

[Lost4words]

Corgis are far more intelligent...

 

[AV1611VET]

Marsupials Are 'Far More Evolved' Than Other Mammals, Even Humans

Last I heard it was porpoises.

Remember Darwin on seaQuest DSV?

And all these new threads coming out about how wrong evolution has been; looks like evolution is a theory in crisis.

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

Last I heard it was porpoises.

Remember Darwin on seaQuest DSV?

And all these new threads coming out about how wrong evolution has been; looks like evolution is a theory in crisis.

seaQuest was a work of fiction.

And no. No-one has shown evolution to be wrong. It's impossible for it to be wrong, it's a process. It just is. Like gravity can't be wrong. It's impossible for a process to be wrong.

 

[Occams Barber]

The animal realm is below the human realm

To make sense of your post you would need to define what you mean by 'realm' and 'below'.

Biological science classifies humans as belonging to the kingdom 'Animalia'. It is true that in non-scientific contexts we often differentiate between 'humans' and 'animals'. This differentiation is a convenient bias rather than being technically correct.

OB

 

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

To make sense of your post you would need to define what you mean by 'realm' and 'below'.

Biological science classifies humans as belonging to the kingdom 'Animalia'. It is true that in non-scientific contexts we often differentiate between 'humans' and 'animals'. This differentiation is a convenient bias rather than being technically correct.

OB

Something something Buddhism mixed with Christianity. Something something 'Third Eye'.

 

[AV1611VET]

seaQuest was a work of fiction.

And no. No-one has shown evolution to be wrong. It's impossible for it to be wrong, it's a process. It just is. Like gravity can't be wrong. It's impossible for a process to be wrong.

It's a process of one wrong after another.

 

[JohnEmmett]

To make sense of your post you would need to define what you mean by 'realm' and 'below'.

You know the meaning…

 

[JohnEmmett]

No-one has shown evolution to be wrong. It's impossible for it to be wrong,

youtu.be/noj4phMT9OE?t=1138

Mathematical Challenges to Darwin’s Theory of Evolution

 

[Occams Barber]

You know the meaning…

No John, I don't.

'Realm' has several meanings (kingdom, domain, area of interest) depending on context. 'Below' can be a reference to relative positioning or some sense of inferiority. In any case you're using both as vague metaphors with vague meanings in this context.

You may be saying, for instance, that humanity is in some sense superior to the rest of the animals. If this is what you're saying, then you need to justify it. If not, you need to explain. You may also be making some vague religious reference as suggested by @Warden_of_the_Storm

Throwing metaphors around (like 'below' & 'realm') can also be a lazy way of avoiding explaining or thinking too hard.

 

[JohnEmmett]

You may be saying, for instance, that humanity is in some sense superior to the rest of the animals.
If this is what you're saying, then you need to justify it.

Humans can learn philosophy

There is no opportunity for animals to learn philosophy

 

[Occams Barber]

Humans can learn philosophy

There is no opportunity for animals to learn philosophy

All animals can learn. I suspect that learning to run down prey or formation fly halfway round the world has more practical, survival value than learning philosophy

If you're trying to suggest that humans are more successful than other animals, you will need to provide me with the unit which measures evolutionary success. We could test it on rats or termites to see if they are more or less successful than humans.

The reality is that you've selected a very narrow human specific ability (learning philosophy) and suggested that it's somehow superior without considering the various abilities of other animals.

Dolphins do dolphin stuff better than humans do therefore, by your logic, dolphins are superior.

OB

 

[JohnEmmett]

you've selected a very narrow human specific ability (learning philosophy) and suggested that it's somehow superior

Yes because it leads to heavenly realms

 

[Occams Barber]

Yes because it leads to heavenly realms

I bet philosophy students everywhere are ecstatic that they have a guaranteed front seat in someone's version of heaven. Pity they can't take the dog.

Seriously? I encourage you to rethink your particular religious philosophy.

OB

 

[JohnEmmett]

Seriously? I encourage you to rethink your particular religious philosophy.

I have… several times

 

[Occams Barber]

I have… several times, always coming closer to the truth

I wish you luck.

I found my particular version of the truth around sixty years ago.

OB

 

[AV1611VET]

I found my particular version of the truth around sixty years ago.

Let me guess.

At one time you embraced Christianity.

Then, sixty years ago, you picked up evolution in your studies.

Now you're an atheist.

Is that about right?