Humans are not "an anomaly in the theory of natural selection".righthandfork wrote:
But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection?
Just what is it that you think is so unique about humans?righthandfork wrote:
And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before.
That we dominate the entire planet and there is nothing to keep us in check. That we are capable of completely destroying all forms of life. When in earth's history has one species evolved in such a radical direction? This is what the term anomaly means.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Humans are not "an anomaly in the theory of natural selection".righthandfork wrote:
But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection?Just what is it that you think is so unique about humans?righthandfork wrote:
And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before.
There are in fact, things that keep us in check. Disease, for example. As a result of human achievement, though, we have been able to get around this. However, while we are unique in your argument that humans have evolved radically, this does not mean that another species cannot do so. We could just merely be the first one to do so.righthandfork wrote:
That we dominate the entire planet and there is nothing to keep us in check. That we are capable of completely destroying all forms of life. When in earth's history has one species evolved in such a radical direction? This is what the term anomaly means.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Humans are not "an anomaly in the theory of natural selection".righthandfork wrote:
But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection?Just what is it that you think is so unique about humans?righthandfork wrote:
And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before.
Last edited by cowami (2007-04-05 17:46:58)
That's not a radical direction at all. All organisms on this planet are competing to get their and only their DNA passed on down. Ideally replacing all other organisms in the process. We are just very good at achieving the means to that end. That does not make us radically different from any other organism.righthandfork wrote:
That we dominate the entire planet and there is nothing to keep us in check. That we are capable of completely destroying all forms of life. When in earth's history has one species evolved in such a radical direction? This is what the term anomaly means.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Humans are not "an anomaly in the theory of natural selection".righthandfork wrote:
But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection?Just what is it that you think is so unique about humans?righthandfork wrote:
And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before.
learn to embrace that dull ache in the brain...cowami wrote:
There are in fact, things that keep us in check. Disease, for example. As a result of human achievement, though, we have been able to get around this. However, while we are unique in your argument that humans have evolved radically, this does not mean that another species cannot do so. We could just merely be the first one to do so.righthandfork wrote:
That we dominate the entire planet and there is nothing to keep us in check. That we are capable of completely destroying all forms of life. When in earth's history has one species evolved in such a radical direction? This is what the term anomaly means.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Humans are not "an anomaly in the theory of natural selection".righthandfork wrote:
But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection?
Just what is it that you think is so unique about humans?
EDIT: Forget it, I'll stick to lurking in the D&ST section, not joining in. Too much thinking.
Is that directed at anyone in particular?sergeriver wrote:
Sorry, what?
Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-05 18:47:15)
Not one eminent scientist within the last half a century believes/believed that humans are the pinnacle of evolution.righthandfork wrote:
You’re right, I don’t know as much about science as you do. But will you admit that humans are an anomaly in the theory of natural selection? And if they are not, then give some examples of where something similar has happened before. This is all I have been asking for. Continued avoidance of this problem is an admission that the reality around us does not always conform to scientific theories. I use the term “theories” as opposed to “fact,” because science is in a constant state of flux. Throughout history new discoveries have led to complete revisions of scientific paradigms. Or have we finally reached the “truth?” Do our models of the natural world finally conform to reality and there is no need for advancement?Drakef wrote:
Even more amusing is your shaky grasp of science. You seem to be determined to have found fault, but you know little about the subject other than a primitive attempt to use simple numbers as your proof. Much more complex than that. Evolution can explain human achievement, if you at least try to use the science correctly.righthandfork wrote:
Let’s summarize the arguments:
I said 2% can’t explain a man on the moon vs. chimpanzees eating termites with a stick.
Most of the rest of you said 2% is a lot and can explain the gap that exists.
As my evidence, I said take any two species in the animal kingdom with a 2% difference and compare them. For example a deer and a moose. Every other species will be similar with slight advantages in speed, eyesight, sense of smell etc. adapted to their particular environment. But the gap is always manageable. Now something either went freakishly wrong (or right depending on your perspective) that makes the human gap so extreme that there is not a single other example that even comes close in the entire history of the natural world.
As your evidence, you present what? You tell me not to watch PBS documentaries, while Wikipedia is the de facto authority in this forum? Amusing.
Last edited by =OBS= EstebanRey (2007-04-06 02:02:40)
All I can add to this thread is that a few years back people couldn't explain the behaviour of the sea, so there was Poseidon. For thunder there was Zeus and the list goes on and on...righthandfork wrote:
Evolution can’t explain human achievement
Erm, a mixture of human and chimpanzee would require someone to do something very unpleasant in the jungle.Ottomania wrote:
http://www.impact-malaria.com/FR/EPS/Fo … panzee.gif
http://blogs.southflorida.com/citylink_ … e-bush.jpg
have you ever saw a half human-half chimpanzee? no.
if evolution happened it must be continuing today, then why we dont see something like a mixture of human and chimpanzee?
an earthquake cant make a city smarter.so mutations in chromosomes cant turn a chimpanzee into a human, which is much more better than chimpanz<e.
Yes, the OP.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Is that directed at anyone in particular?sergeriver wrote:
Sorry, what?
Not always. Usually they do nothing.Ottomania wrote:
Just check the effects of radiation. changes in chromosome are undecided things. they kill or they damage heavily.
I may be mistaken, but I thought every living organism required ATP (as all organisms have mitochondria)ATP? ; check
