I've used the term animals and species to mean the same thing.
Dawiyd. I've said several times already that man does not dominate HIV.
Dawiyd. I've said several times already that man does not dominate HIV.
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.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Question for evolutionists
- Thread starter jamie4418
- Start date
Just ask what you want already rather than tryign to get people to play into your hand and give you the answers you want so you can follow with a string of questions in an attempt to get someone to contradict themselves.
"Evolutionist" implies that there is an alternative to the reality that is evolution. There is no such thing.
We are not more evolved as I am pretty sure any wish will outswim you in water, a monkey will climb a tree better and cheetahs run faster just to give a few examples. Each animal that is in their natural habitat is there because it is most suited to living in that environment. We are very much a land animal but with no specific niche as such, we are a jack of all trades.
The only thing I would say is more evolved is our inginuity resulting in our technology. The very same technology that gives us much control of our environment and other creatures, which is what you by the sounds of it had in mind.
"Evolutionist" implies that there is an alternative to the reality that is evolution. There is no such thing.
We are not more evolved as I am pretty sure any wish will outswim you in water, a monkey will climb a tree better and cheetahs run faster just to give a few examples. Each animal that is in their natural habitat is there because it is most suited to living in that environment. We are very much a land animal but with no specific niche as such, we are a jack of all trades.
The only thing I would say is more evolved is our inginuity resulting in our technology. The very same technology that gives us much control of our environment and other creatures, which is what you by the sounds of it had in mind.
Upvote
0
It's not my problem if you don't have a basic grasp of scientific terminology, next time before entering into a discussion that involves a scientific topic, I seriously suggest you don't use colloquial terms.
Ok, please show me how man dominates tube worms that live at hydrothermal vents, since man dominates ALL species/animals. If you cannot your point is moot.
Upvote
0
Well, there is no such term as "most evolved" within the Theory of Evolution. Seriously, the nature of evolution means that such a concept does not exist. So I know you couldn't be asking about that.
As for "dominating animals", in some contexts, yes, we do. If you really care about putting animals in zoos, or ensuring their destruction, yes, we can do that better than animals can. However, if you are talking about surviving unaided in extreme environments, other species clearly win.
Now, my question to you: What is your point? So we can put animals in zoos. Do you think that the Theory of Evolution predicts that we shouldn't be able to? Do you think that the theory claims that we are in any way higher relative to species that cannot? The answer to both questions is no. Life evolved in a bush-like structure, with many branching species existing at the same time. When we look at it this way, we see that all species gain equally important adaptations for their environment. At the same time that we gained intelligence and consciousness, other species gained the ability to survive around hydrothermal vents. Both us and these species have unique adaptations. Thus, both groups can do things that the other cannot. We can put animals in zoos, while these other species can survive around hydrothermal vents.
As for "dominating animals", in some contexts, yes, we do. If you really care about putting animals in zoos, or ensuring their destruction, yes, we can do that better than animals can. However, if you are talking about surviving unaided in extreme environments, other species clearly win.
Now, my question to you: What is your point? So we can put animals in zoos. Do you think that the Theory of Evolution predicts that we shouldn't be able to? Do you think that the theory claims that we are in any way higher relative to species that cannot? The answer to both questions is no. Life evolved in a bush-like structure, with many branching species existing at the same time. When we look at it this way, we see that all species gain equally important adaptations for their environment. At the same time that we gained intelligence and consciousness, other species gained the ability to survive around hydrothermal vents. Both us and these species have unique adaptations. Thus, both groups can do things that the other cannot. We can put animals in zoos, while these other species can survive around hydrothermal vents.
Upvote
0
I think we DO dominate tube worms because I think we could put them in containers or whatever and observe them and do whatever we want with them.
Upvote
0
Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't evolution and survival of the fittest go hand in hand?
Upvote
0
jamie, you keep askign the same question when it has been explained to you that the question isn't really adaquate.
It's like asking, are dogs better than cats? Are trucks better than cars? Is red better than green? Is water paint better than acrylic?
The answer depends on the situation.
Humans have evolved what we assume is the greatest intellegence of any species on earth. But a gorilla is stronger. A cheetah is faster. Birds can fly and fish can swim. They fit their niche.
Are humans best at fitting their niche? Quite possibly. We can use our intellegence to alter our environment.
And though we may seem superior, we are still reliant on the ecosystem to survive.
It's like asking, are dogs better than cats? Are trucks better than cars? Is red better than green? Is water paint better than acrylic?
The answer depends on the situation.
Humans have evolved what we assume is the greatest intellegence of any species on earth. But a gorilla is stronger. A cheetah is faster. Birds can fly and fish can swim. They fit their niche.
Are humans best at fitting their niche? Quite possibly. We can use our intellegence to alter our environment.
And though we may seem superior, we are still reliant on the ecosystem to survive.
Upvote
0
Imperfect replicators (cells) will change over time to produce new species.
Survival of the Fittest is a term used to describe sexual or natural selection.
Likely yes but many species such as dolphins and apes have intelligence comparable to our own.
Very few species have thumbs meaning that their hands can only be used for locomotion and as a weapon. Apes have demonstrated the ability to use simple tools to find food.
What facts are you referring to?
Please use the edit button rather than make 6 consecutive posts.
Upvote
0
I really find it hard to go against the idea that humans dominate all animals on the earth.
Upvote
0
Nearly all atheists also accept the Theory of Evolution. atheists make up less than .5% of the prision popuation in America, we also make up about 10% of the total population. An atheist is over 20 times less likely to comit a crime than a Christian.
On Earth, yes.
Look at the plegues. Nearly 1/3 of Europe died from the Black death. The Spannish flu killed over 50,000,000 people less than 100 years ago. Today viruses like HIV are evolving at a rate that we are unable to find a cure.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
