Question for evolutionists

[Skaloop]

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?

No. And at least you admit you aren't an expert. Nobody is saying that a fish changed into a mammal. The change is not in one individual, or one major step. It's a change through a population, over thousands upon thousands of small variations between thousands of generations over millions of years.

Modern mammals do indeed have an ancient ancestor that would have been, based upon our wording, a fish. And the transition from one to the other (over millions of years, remember) is indeed the result of natural selection. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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

How do you define "less" or "greater" evolved? These words are meaningless when it comes to evolution.

Humans are apes... and we evolved differently from other species of apes... less physical prowess, more mental prowess.

 

[jamie4418]

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?

Evolutionists believe that one of humans' ancestors were fish, who at one time came from amoeba.

 

[Skaloop]

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

You've already been told that evolutionist is a misleading term. But I'll try to answer anyway.

People who subscribe to modern cladistics know that we are apes. There's no belief involved; it's a fact of the discipline. Humans are classified as apes. Of of story. People who don't subscribe to cladistics are free to not accept that, but they have yet to offer an alternative.

As to whether we are more or less evolved, you've already been told that that is a faulty question. Every living creature is equally evolved as any other living creature; our family trees all go back to the same point, and we've been evolving for the same amount of time.

 

[Edx]

Evolutionists believe that one of humans' ancestors were fish,

And cladistically, are still fish now. But you need to understand what is meant when you say fish.

Ed

 

[jamie4418]

yes some do no some dont. right and wrong is irrelevant to evolution.
But you seem to believe it is related can you explain how?

For me your question is like asking do those that believe in gravity believe in the existence of right and wrong.

I never said right and wrong were relevant to evolution.

I am simply asking if the atheistic evolutionists here believe there is a right and wrong.

 

[Shemjaza]

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

Yes. Exactly.

 

[Edx]

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

Ducks are still birds, as well.

 

[jamie4418]

And cladistically, are still fish now. But you need to understand what is meant when you say fish.

Ed

You believe we are still a form of fish?

 

[Edx]

You believe we are still a form of fish?

Yes, you cant describe all of them collectively without also desribing us. Example; what defines a fish? Its not fins, its not cold bloodedness, its not living only in water.

 

[Pesto]

I never said right and wrong were relevant to evolution.

I am simply asking if the atheistic evolutionists here believe there is a right and wrong.

That will depend on the particular person you ask. Ideas about atheism and evolution are very separate from ideas about morality, so a proclaimed possition in one will not necessarily have any bearing on the other. However, an atheist is probably more likely to ascribe to some sort of relativism than a theist.

 

[The Lady Kate]

I never said right and wrong were relevant to evolution.

I am simply asking if the atheistic evolutionists here believe there is a right and wrong.

You didn't specify "Atheistic" before... why is that?

 

[Tenka]

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.

Being able to kill something doesn't make an orgaanism more evolved than it and for most of our existence we have barely been able to dominate any.

I don't believe in evolution, so I can't answer that.

I think you'll find that you do accept evolution you just think it is something it's not.

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

We are apes and mammals, we have all the characteristics of apes and mammals.
There is no greater evolved. Only better or worse suited to an environment. Sharks have barely changed in a hundred million years compared to humans, they are suited to their environment and have had little pressure to change.

 

[jamie4418]

Being able to kill something doesn't make an orgaanism more evolved than it and for most of our existence we have barely been able to dominate any.

I think you'll find that you do accept evolution you just think it is something it's not.

We are apes and mammals, we have all the characteristics of apes and mammals.
There is no greater evolved. Only better or worse suited to an environment. Sharks have barely changed in a hundred million years compared to humans, they are suited to their environment and have had little pressure to change.

We may not agree, Tenka. But I appreciate your civil answers.

 

[Tenka]

We may not agree, Tenka. But I appreciate your civil answers.

I am pleased that you appreciate civility but this is a debate/discussion forum . I'm more interested in what you disagree with and why.

 

[jamie4418]

I am pleased that you appreciate civility but this is a debate/discussion forum . I'm more interested in what you disagree with and why.

I've mentioned many times what I've disagreed with and why. Read the posts.

 

[lemmings]

There is no one way to determine if a species is more fit. I am going to list several species who are “more evolved” than us based on their abilities.

Brain size – Neanderthals had a brain slightly larger than modern humans.

Chromosome count – Potatoes have 48 chromosomes, we have 46.

Individual body mass – The blue whale can grow to over 200 short tons, most humans are not even 200 pounds.

Age – The giant turtles have a life span of 250 years; the oldest human is only about 120 years old.

Oldest species – Horseshoe crabs are over 400 million years older than the human species.

Total population – Nearly any insect, plant, or bacteria, our 6,500,000,000 people is nothing compared to insects that can have 10 million individuals in a single colony or the 100 billion E. coli that die every day inside the human body.

Reproduction rate – The gestation time period in humans is around 9 months, rodents have an average gestation period of less than 1 month.


Top species? HA! We would be nearly extinct without our science.

 

[yasic]

Also, I think our ability to blow the world up makes us *lesser* then other animals:

If you have to stick a universal meaning to more developed, or more evolved, or more dominating, or anything of this sort (Which is obviously not so, it is all relative as has been countlessly pointed out here), it would have to be "Best able to survive as a species in the long run, or the longest length of time from now"

No other animal possesses the ability to stop the entire species from existing simply by an act of stupidity (such a leader that randomly decides to start WWW III), thus we alone have the option to singlehandedly "lose" the species war.

 

[ranmaonehalf]

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).

i would tend to agree with that concept. However thats only as a society. But none the less we are probably the only creature on earth that can make itself extinct.

 

[Eudaimonist]

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

In what way? I'll assume gorilla here.

In terms of intelligence? Sure.

In terms of muscle strength? No way.


eudaimonia,

Mark