AnEmpiricalAgnostic
Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
- May 25, 2005
- 2,740
- 186
- 51
- Faith
- Atheist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Libertarian
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Precisely.michabo said:Paramecium are also at the top. All species who are still alive are at the top.
It wasn't told, because it isn't true. But then again, that isn't what was said. What was said was this:pittguy579 said:So humans have been on the planet the same amount of time as single celled organisms? I didn't know that. I must have missed that in my biology class.
Random_guy said:Bacteria, humans, bananas have all been evolving the same amount of time.
No, it's not. The tree has all currently living creatures on top. What makes you decide humans are on top? What objective criteria do you use?Fine, its a tree with humans on top.
Are they? By what criteria. Sure, we have large brains, capable of complex thought processes. But our locomotion, eyes, ears etc etc all are horribly underdeveloped. Why favor one above the other? What is your standard objective measure of 'being advanced' or 'complex' and by what criteria do you use it?Maybe the right word isn't complex, but advanced
Either way it's still the same. Humans are more advanced than baceteria, dinosaurs, sloths, apes dogs, cats, goats, manatees, and even earthworms.
In other words, currently living bacteria are the result of some 3.5 billion years of evolution. Currently living humans are too, just as currently living chimps, lions, mice, ducks, crocodiles, salamanders, and Coelacanths. We have been evolving for the same amount of time as they have, only the selection pressures and direction has been different.
No, it's not. The tree has all currently living creatures on top. What makes you decide humans are on top? What objective criteria do you use?
Are they? By what criteria. Sure, we have large brains, capable of complex thought processes. But our locomotion, eyes, ears etc etc all are horribly underdeveloped. Why favor one above the other? What is your standard objective measure of 'being advanced' or 'complex' and by what criteria do you use it?
Which currently living bacteria species has been around for 3.5 billion years?pittguy579 said:How can something evolve if it didn't exist?
Humans haven't been around for 3.5 billion years
Again, by what criteria? How can I tell which creature is more advanced if I don't know the criteria by which to judge that? The HIV-virus has a very high adaptablity, so much so that it can escape almost every cure we can throw at it. That's what I call advanced.I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.
Nope, bacteria are. Really. They'll be around when we're long gone. We're only king of the hill in a very select part of the world, and only just.Because our intelligence enables us to be supreme without the best in locomotion, ears, eyes, etc
We are the king of the hill.
]Which currently living bacteria species has been around for 3.5 billion years?
Again, by what criteria? How can I tell which creature is more advanced if I don't know the criteria by which to judge that? The HIV-virus has a very high adaptablity, so much so that it can escape almost every cure we can throw at it. That's what I call advanced.
Nope, bacteria are. Really. They'll be around when we're long gone. We're only king of the hill in a very select part of the world, and only just.
pittguy579 said:I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.
]Put a human in a pit with an enraged bear and see how advanced we are. Put a human in the water with an angry shark, or race one against a dolphin. Try diving as low as a seal, or running as fast as a cheetah, or surviving on nothing but Eucalyptus...
I think they mean that the lines resulting in other extant species are as old as that leading to humans.pittguy579 said:How can something evolve if it didn't exist?
Humans haven't been around for 3.5 billion years
You're logic is really the result of an elitist homo-centric attitude. We think humans are superior, because we are human. Just as every civilization on earth has thought is was "superior" to every other.pittguy579 said:I use logic.
Name me one creature that is more advanced than humans.
Why use only intelligence as as indicater of "superiority?" One other point... our intelligence may one day lead to our extinction. If that happens, those lowly insects, mice and rabbits will inherit the earth. Who will be superior then... hmmm?pittguy579 said:Because our intelligence enables us to be supreme without the best in locomotion, ears, eyes, etc
We are the king of the hill.
Put a human and a roach in a city and then nuke it. Who would win then?pittguy579 said:I never said we had the best physical traits, but we can use our intelligence to adapt to our environment
Put a human with gatling gun in a pit with a bear. who would win? Put a human on a boat with a harpoon against an angry shark or even a human with a net. Who would win.
You're logic is really the result of an elitist homo-centric attitude. We think humans are superior, because we are human. Just as every civilization on earth has thought is was "superior" to every other.
Mice and rabbits are superior because they have a superior reproductive rate and are excellent at adapting.
Roaches are superior to us in ability to survive. Ever try to exterminate them?
Eagles have far superior eyesight.
Whales have very large, complex brains like ours, but they are much better swimmers.
Why use only intelligence as as indicater of "superiority?" One other point... our intelligence may one day lead to our extinction. If that happens, those lowly insects, mice and rabbits will inherit the earth. Who will be superior then... hmmm?
Split Rock said:Put a human and a roach in a city and then nuke it. Who would win then?
Which only shows how little you know of biology. You seem under the impression that a bacteria is a bacteria and that's all there's to it. But you're wrong. I mean, humans are just a kind of eukaryote, just as Deinococcus radiodurans is a kind of bacteria. Eukaryotes have been around for more than 3 billion years.pittguy579 said:I was talking about bacteria in general
Why choose that measure? Even when limiting it to the animal kingdom, why would that be the only measure that counts? What makes it a better measure of advancement or complexity than others?Intelligence. We are talking about the animal kingdom
But you specifically stated to name any creature. And advanced or not, bacteria are definitely king of the world. They're more spread out then eukaryotes ever have been.Bacteria are not king of the animal kingdom and are not advanced by any measure.
They always said cockroaches would be the most likely candidate to survive a nuclear war
I hardly consider them to be advanced
Why use intelligence as a measure of advancement?pittguy579 said:I never said we had the best physical traits, but we can use our intelligence to adapt to our environment
I'll put my money on the bear. But how many humans carry gatling guns around all day?Put a human with gatling gun in a pit with a bear. who would win?
We're talking about just an average human against an average shark, right? The harpoon? I'll predict a draw. The net, my bet's on the shark.Put a human on a boat with a harpoon against an angry shark or even a human with a net. Who would win.
[Which only shows how little you know of biology. You seem under the impression that a bacteria is a bacteria and that's all there's to it. But you're wrong. I mean, humans are just a kind of eukaryote, just as Deinococcus radiodurans is a kind of bacteria. Eukaryotes have been around for more than 3 billion years.
Why choose that measure? Even when limiting it to the animal kingdom, why would that be the only measure that counts? What makes it a better measure of advancement or complexity than others?
And since when is this discussion only about the animal kingdom? Till now we've been discussing biology in general. You specificially stated to name any creature. Why suddenly shift the goalposts?
But you specifically stated to name any creature. And advanced or not, bacteria are definitely king of the world. They're more spread out then eukaryotes ever have been.
And why would you not consider cockroaches advanced? What makes you decide that? Why do you take intelligence as a measur of being advanced? Cockroaches are clearly more adaptable then humans, and their cells are just as complex (we're all eukaryotes).
Put a human in the water and a dolphin in the water, who'll swim better? Again, why use intelligence as the measurement of advancement or complexity? What objective reason do you have for that?pittguy579 said:Heartiness does not equal greater complexity
Put a differential equation book or quantum mechanics book in front a roach
Which one actually comprehend it?
]Why use intelligence as a measure of advancement?
I'll put my money on the bear. But how many humans carry gatling guns around all day?
We're talking about just an average human against an average shark, right? The harpoon? I'll predict a draw. The net, my bet's on the shark
Tomk80 said:Put a human in the water and a dolphin in the water, who'll swim better? Again, why use intelligence as the measurement of advancement or complexity? What objective reason do you have for that?
Yes, the answer is no. Bacteria as a common definition denotes nothing.pittguy579 said:No, it shows how much you are trying to spin
Are you saying bacteria as a common definitiongeneral have not been around longer than humans? It is a yes or no question
The answer is obvious.
Because intelligence allows us to adapt to any enviroment and do complex tasks other creatures could not dream of
And why is that a definite measure of advancement? Dolphins are much better swimmers then we are, even with our technology.I want to see a cockroach or whale build nanomachines, supercomputers, cure diseases, and send people to the moon, create art, music, culture. Once you find out where that has happened, let me know
I never claimed it was. I said that it wasn't necessarily more advanced, and that your measure of advanced sucks.No one is [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]ing goalposts.
Hearitness does not equal complexity
If you want to say a bacteria is more intelligent than a human being, IQ wise, be my guest.
I didn't state it did. My words actually mean something. When I say 'more advanced or not', I'm not telling you that bacteria are more advanced. It means I'm leaving that in the middle. I was saying that humans are not king of the hill, as a response to you stating they are.More numerous doesn't mean more advanced
I am sure there are more fish in the sea than there are humans. It doesn't mean fish are more advanced
Why?Because it is the best measure.
Yes, I know you can insult. Good boy.pittguy579 said:Seriously, intelligence is lacking on this thread
That much is obvious
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?