Question for evolutionists

[USincognito]

Okay, instead of insulting me, could you answer the quesiton? Could someone please show me an example where an animal could do anything remotely close to some of the complex things humans can do?

Aphid relationship to humans - pests.
Aphid relationship to ants - livestock.

 

[USincognito]

Okay, let me use one example. We humans can put almost every animal in a zoo and watch them in entertainment. Does this not show that we dominate all living creatures?

You're confusing technology with evolution. They are not synoymous.

 

[Tenka]

Jamie, your definition of most evolved I.E the animal that can dominate the others is like saying the school bully is the best student.
More importantly it is flawed because there was a time (mere thousands of years ago) when we certainly did not dominate, we fled from predators and chased our prey with sharp sticks. These humans were practically identical to current humans but by your reasoning they were less evolved.
We may be able to beat up most animals but only hundreds of thousands of years of cumulative learning allows us to produce the tools we use to dominate other life. A human stripped of these in an unfavorable environment is frequently a dead human.

 

[Shemjaza]

I think humans as a species are the smartest and possibly the most dangerous to other species.

We have the ability and the social structure to wipe out, change or control many other animal species... but we don't totally dominate the other species, for example we would like to save some of the rarer almost extinct species we can't. We are unable to totally contain some of the invader species that we've spread around the world whether by accident or on purpose. (No one wanted to bring rats to every island and continent, but we could stop them hitching a ride with us).

Every species is slowly evolving right now... we have been since the first imperfect replicators, and we will only stop evolving when the species dies out.

 

[MrGoodBytes]

Jamie, you seem to overlook that all those things you mentioned - putting lions in zoos, studying deep sea organisms - are all entirely dependant on the use of technology. Now, you might argue that technology is a result of our intelligence, which again is a result of evolution, but that's not entirely the same.

A man without any tools will get his posterior handed back to him, should he try to catch a lion. A man without any tools cannot get to the sea floor to catch a worm. A man without any tools isn't neither particularly strong nor fast, he can't fly, dive or burrow underground.

But, he can use his intelligence to do these things better than any animal. If you mean that by "more evolved" then yes, we are. Strictly speaking in the biological sense, no.

 

[Freodin]

I´d say the question is most easily answered in a yes/no fashion.

No, evolutionists do not believe that humans are the "most evolved" species on this planet.

But that is not because they believe that some other species holds the title of "most evolved", but because the don´t see the term "most evolved" as meaningfull in regard to evolution.

Perhaps a counterquestion can make this clear: Which denomination of Christians do you think is the "most saved"?

 

[moogoob]

It's not a required course? Weird, my school district requires 2 years of Biology and a total of 4 years of science.

Not in Ontario, at least. Though to be fair, grades nine and ten (and elementary school) are general sciences and include Biology components. I personally never took a dedicated Biology course, as Chemistry and Physics were more interesting to me in the later years of my high school education. Given the time he's posting, though, it's likely he's somewhere in the west, so perhaps praries to BC?

 

[TemperateSeaIsland]

There is no simple yes or no answer to the question of what creature is the most evolved. Its like asking "what's better a hammer or a saw?"

 

[Baggins]

I'm not only asking you, but other evolutionists as well. Do evolutionists believe there is a right and wrong? An atheist is 20 times less likely to commit a crime than a Christian? Where is the proof?


.

The proof was in the post you quoted.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you believe a human is more developed than an ape or gorilla?

Since we are Apes, the question is a bit nonsensicle. But no, we are just as 'developed' as any other Ape.

Do you?

 

[AngryWomble]

I'm not trying to bait or argumentative, I'm just trying to get some simple answers on what evolutionists believe.

Is that a question relating to scientific knowledge or a personal belief. Because beleive it or not there is a difference and with scientific knowledge there is no element of fait required

What is your point?

I'm begining to wonder if he even has one.

I use the term evolutionist because it's simpler. If I can't call you guys evolutionist, then what should I call you? Someone who believes evolution to be true? That's simply too wordy.

I'm simply trying to get some straight answers, AND I'm trying to debate.

I've always been under the impression that evolution supposed that humans are the most evolved animals on the earth.

Scientist is the overarching term, it can then be broken down into Biologist, Chemist Geologist, Physist and all the other flavours. Evolution is a theory not a science.

I'm sorry Dawiyd. I'm not as smart as you.

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.

That's not dominating it.

 

[crimsondeath]

i belive we dominate most of the land of the earth, exept for maby some jungles and mountins, but not the sea at all. just because we can go down and capture a few animals or whatever doesn't mean we "dominate" them.

 

[jamie4418]

Jamie, your definition of most evolved I.E the animal that can dominate the others is like saying the school bully is the best student.
More importantly it is flawed because there was a time (mere thousands of years ago) when we certainly did not dominate, we fled from predators and chased our prey with sharp sticks. These humans were practically identical to current humans but by your reasoning they were less evolved.
We may be able to beat up most animals but only hundreds of thousands of years of cumulative learning allows us to produce the tools we use to dominate other life. A human stripped of these in an unfavorable environment is frequently a dead human.

But we could strip ALL of these things from humans, and from scratch, he could still destroy every creature he comes into contact with.

 

[jamie4418]

i belive we dominate most of the land of the earth, exept for maby some jungles and mountins, but not the sea at all. just because we can go down and capture a few animals or whatever doesn't mean we "dominate" them.

When I say dominate the earth, I'm speaking generally and with reference to the animals we come into contact with. We have certainly not come into contact with many creatures in the deep sea and jungles.

 

[jamie4418]

Here's a fact. We can do whatever we want with animals.

I'd say that's domination.

Even if we were to strip away all technology from man, he can then rebuild that technology and do whatever he wants to animals.

Now to say that man has an advantage simply because he has technology is a weak point because man will always have technology. Even the most primitive weapons are technology, and man can improve all these weapons.

The very fact that man has technology in and of itself shows man's special place compared to all animals.

The fact is this, mankind can create an almost infinite amount of things. Animals can create nothing. Why is that?

 

[USincognito]

But we could strip ALL of these things from humans, and from scratch, he could still destroy every creature he comes into contact with.

I can think of 10 right off hand that would wipe the floor with a naked human.
1. E. Coli
2. Staphilococcus
3. Cone shell
4. Piranha
5. Wolverine
6. Bull shark
7. Moose
8. Grizzly Bear
9. Crocodile
10. Elephant

 

[jamie4418]

Since we are Apes, the question is a bit nonsensicle. But no, we are just as 'developed' as any other Ape.

Do you?

I don't believe in evolution.

I believe that humans are created in the image of God.

Why I've been asking all these questions is to actually know what evolutionists generally believe. I realize that not all evolutionists are in agreement about everything.

 

[jamie4418]

Do evolutionists believe humans evolved from apes?

 

[USincognito]

Here's a fact. We can do whatever we want with animals.

I'd say that's domination.

Do you even read responses that are provided to you? Here's one from page 11.

Aphid relationship to humans - pests.
Aphid relationship to ants - livestock.

 

[jamie4418]

Deleted.