Question for evolutionists

[Dal M.]

But most of the evos here are atheist.

And all the evos on the Origins Theology forum are Christian.

 

[tocis]

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

Overall? No.

Better adapted/more capable in some aspects? Yes.

I've yet to hear about a gorilla mastering trigonometrics... but then, I've yet to hear about a human besting gorillas in the art of surviving in the jungle like they do.
(I know that there are a few human researchers who lived with gorillas "out there" for a time, but I refer to doing that on your own...)

 

[plindboe]

It's funny if you want to conclude that humans are dominating all life, that you have to apply a multitude of restrictions first. It can't be viruses, it can't be prokaryotes, it can't be unicellular eukaryotes, it can't be any animal parasites, in fact it can't be multicellular organisms, protista, fungi, plantae, animalia, that can cause any kind of disease, toxins, infections etc.

So what have we got left? Thousands of species of insects ruin our crops, and while we can fight back, we can't rarely terminate them. So shall we remove all animals that affect agriculture?

Even with our technology people are affected and killed by venomous animals each year, Australia being the obvious example. So shall we remove venomous from the equation as well?

It also seems typical, that a person coming from a rich society, ignore the fact that most people in the world don't really have access to advanced technology. People in poor nations are killed or mauled by hippos and crocodiles, lions and tigers. So we'll have to exclude predators in poor nations as well.

And even in advanced societies we have cases where people are attacked by dogs and other animals.

So let's see. Are humans dominating all life, with the exception of viruses, prokaryotes, unicellular eukaryotes, protista, fungi, plantae, animalia, that can cause any kind of disease, toxins, infections, species that ruin crops, venomous animals, predators that abode in the 3rd world, and any other animals that attack humans?

Or perhaps you could simply ask, are humans dominating all life, if we exclude all the cases where they aren't?

Ask that, and I'll agree.

Peter

 

[[serious]]

It's funny if you want to conclude that humans are dominating all life, that you have to apply a multitude of restrictions first. It can't be viruses, it can't be prokaryotes, it can't be unicellular eukaryotes, it can't be any animal parasites, in fact it can't be multicellular organisms, protista, fungi, plantae, animalia, that can cause any kind of disease, toxins, infections etc.

Well, what amazes me is that under those rules, all primary producers are excluded. Right off the top we have ruled out the very organisms that make our survival possible.

Oh, and we rule out about 90% of life just with that exclusion.

Graphically,

----------
Things we are completely depndant on for survival
-
Things we so totally dominate! (sort of)

 

[ranmaonehalf]

another fantastic point is brought up in the matrix...

im sure you have watched it. yes we can destroy the animals and life on this planet. and if that is what you consider dominating then to a point we do.

However, if we were to destroy them, we too would die out. we live in a world that is balanced and if we dominate everything then we will die.

as for your first question. no we are not more evolved than any other animal.

 

[GoSeminoles!]

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

Based on your criteria stated elsewhere, I think humans clearly dominate the planet right now. We can kill, create, capture, or favor most any species we choose.

Whether humans are "more developed" than another species is not a very useful question in an evolutionary context. Humans are quite good at surviving in the African savannah, but not so good at surviving near a thermal vent 5 miles below the surface of the ocean.

We're almost certainly the most intelligent species on the planet, but it is not yet clear whether so much intelligence (combined with complex tool-making and abstract communication) is a good long-term survival trait. We've only been around a few hundred thousand years; we could easily blow ourselves up tomorrow. Many species would survive, but we would not. Alligators may not have iPods but they have managed to survive many times longer than humans.

 

[Freodin]

Yes, we do dominate other animals.

Individual humans might be overpowered or killed by animals - large predators or small microbes. But all in all, humanity doesn´t sit and accepts that, but tries to change that.

We are quite good at "dominating", because that is our evolutionary advantage. Other species thrive because they are perfectly adapted to their enviroment - humans adapt the enviroment to their needs.

But still... that does not mean that we are "more" developed - only differently.

 

[DrkSdBls]

But most of the evos here are atheist.

Nah. It's just the the Atheists just tend to post a whole lot more.

Go back through the Thread and count just how many Atheists posted Vs. all non Atheists., not just the number of their posts. I'm betting there aren't as many Athiests partisapating in this thread as you think.

 

[jamie4418]

another fantastic point is brought up in the matrix...

im sure you have watched it. yes we can destroy the animals and life on this planet. and if that is what you consider dominating then to a point we do.

However, if we were to destroy them, we too would die out. we live in a world that is balanced and if we dominate everything then we will die.

as for your first question. no we are not more evolved than any other animal.

Maybe I should say humans are the most powerful life forms on the earth. The very fact that we have the ability to wipe out all life on earth shows that we are the most powerful (whether that is good or bad is another discussion).

 

[KerrMetric]

Maybe I should say humans are the most powerful life forms on the earth. The very fact that we have the ability to wipe out all life on earth shows that we are the most powerful (whether that is good or bad is another discussion).

Wow - 189 posts primarily revolving around your disingenuous questioning and you FINALLY change your tune and remove the words "most evolved".

Proud?

 

[jamie4418]

This doesn't make us more evolved. Were it true.

Yes countless,but still only a small percentage of living organisms. You even tried to exclude nematodes (reclassifying the guinea worm as a virus).

I think we have different ideas on what it means to dominate. You guys seem to suggest it means to actually come into contact with, and put that organism under subjection.

What I'm saying is that although there are countless organisms we have not come into contact with, we have the ability to dominate them.

 

[jamie4418]

so you are saying if we toss you into the jungle with wild animals you will build a gun out of something?
and as it has been pointedout animals do make things. simple tools. houses ect.. and I would bet that most animals are better at it than most humans are. It is only due to education and more importantly society and the knowledge contained within in them that we dont have to relearn everything over and over again.

Yes, animals can build houses, but what else can they build? Please list them.

What can humans build? The list is endless.

 

[jamie4418]

What the Bible says and what you seem to be implying are two different things. I'd prefer to focus on our responsibility for being the stewards for the Earth, now the power trip of trying to "dominate" anything.

I also agree that we should be good stewards on the earth. But simply by being good stewards, we are exercising our ability to dominate. Being good stewards of the earth is totally opposite to "power tripping", yet we are still dominating.

 

[Kripost]

Maybe I should say humans are the most powerful life forms on the earth. The very fact that we have the ability to wipe out all life on earth shows that we are the most powerful (whether that is good or bad is another discussion).

Actually, we do not have the ability to wipe out all life on earth. Fungi, bacteria, protists are more resiliant than that. We do have the ability to cause the extinction of many organisms. But to speak of all life, not at all.

 

[jamie4418]

Actually, we do not have the ability to wipe out all life on earth. Fungi, bacteria, protists are more resiliant than that. We do have the ability to cause the extinction of many organisms. But to speak of all life, not at all.

Okay, we have the ability to wipe off almost all life off the earth.

 

[jamie4418]

Deleted.

 

[wmc1982]

I haven't read the whole thread and I am far from an expert on the subject. But are Evolutionists saying that Natural Selection or "Survival of the Fittest" could of evolved a fish into a mammal?

 

[Skaloop]

But didn't humans evolve from fish, which are not mammals?

Humans evolved from vetebrates. Fish are also vertebrates. But saying we evolved from fish is not accurate. You should look into the idea of the nested hierarchy.

The correct and more accurate way of saying it is that we share a common ancestor with modern-day fish. But neither we nor modern-day fish are more evolved; they've been at it for as long as we have. As has every other species not currently extinct. And every ape, mammal, and vertebrate shares a common ancestor at some point. Some more recently than others. And chances are, every organism on Earth shares a single life form as a common ancestor.

 

[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, so I can't answer that.

 

[jamie4418]

So evolutionists believe we ARE apes, no less or no greater evolved than apes?