1. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    28 Jul '11 07:31
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?
    You thought wrong. Both us, and other living apes are still surviving (so far) therefore neither of us has proven to be 'better' in evolutionary terms.

    The idea of man as the pinnacle of evolution with all other life forms as inferior is not a scientific one but rather a case of ego.
  2. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    28 Jul '11 08:50
    So it is all in the mind/ego? I don't think so
    To me, it looks like the theory of evolution & natural selection explains why a species is not only able to survive but to multiply and dominate..... that is what Man has done.
    Look around, Man is the dominant species on earth, at least
    ... and at home, when the Wife isn't at home. 🙂
  3. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    28 Jul '11 09:09
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    So it is all in the mind/ego? I don't think so
    To me, it looks like the theory of evolution & natural selection explains why a species is not only able to survive but to multiply and dominate..... that is what Man has done.
    Look around, Man is the dominant species on earth, at least
    ... and at home, when the Wife isn't at home. 🙂
    I think that you will find various bacteria, viruses and insects are more succesfull than Man.
  4. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    28 Jul '11 10:00
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    I think that you will find various bacteria, viruses and insects are more succesfull than Man.
    Success implies that you have a particular goal to achieve. I think you mean more prevalent.
  5. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    28 Jul '11 10:12
    Originally posted by lausey
    Success implies that you have a particular goal to achieve. I think you mean more prevalent.
    The goal of any species being prevalence? 😀
  6. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    28 Jul '11 10:33
    Originally posted by wolfgang59
    The goal of any species being prevalence? 😀
    No, species doesn't have a goal. The net result is prevalence for the examples you have given. There isn't any "success".
  7. Standard membergalveston75
    Texasman
    San Antonio Texas
    Joined
    19 Jul '08
    Moves
    78676
    28 Jul '11 10:33
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    You thought wrong. Both us, and other living apes are still surviving (so far) therefore neither of us has proven to be 'better' in evolutionary terms.

    The idea of man as the pinnacle of evolution with all other life forms as inferior is not a scientific one but rather a case of ego.
    The point I'm trying to make here in general is not which species is better. The point I'm making here with this post is why does man have this trait and no other life forms on earth seem to do this?
    If we were truly a decendent of some other species either from apes or a cousin of the apes or however one wants to say it (because there is no proof that we did indeed decend from some other species) then there should be many, many traits that we share.
    Why not this? Could it be that we are different then all other life on this planet? The Bible clearly says we were created a little lower then angels. It says nothing of the sort about any other species on this planet. The Bible also clearly says that at one time we were physically perfect. But once we lost that, it would affect many things in our bodies and now science is possibly seeing one of these things.
  8. Standard memberProper Knob
    Cornovii
    North of the Tamar
    Joined
    02 Feb '07
    Moves
    53689
    28 Jul '11 10:51
    Originally posted by galveston75
    The point I'm trying to make here in general is not which species is better. The point I'm making here with this post is why does man have this trait and no other life forms on earth seem to do this?
    If we were truly a decendent of some other species either from apes or a cousin of the apes or however one wants to say it (because there is no proof that ...[text shortened]... would affect many things in our bodies and now science is possibly seeing one of these things.
    The point I'm making here with this post is why does man have this trait and no other life forms on earth seem to do this?

    Goodness grief you just don't listen (read) do you, it's been explained to you why this happens. Our brains begin to shrink because we live a lot longer due to the advances in medical technology. If we started spending vast amounts of money over the next few centuries trying to extend the lives of other primates i'm sure we would start to see the same thing occur in them.
  9. Standard memberAgerg
    The 'edit'or
    converging to it
    Joined
    21 Aug '06
    Moves
    11463
    28 Jul '11 12:22
    Originally posted by galveston75
    I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?

    http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/07/26/humans-see-brains-shrink-with-age-research-shows/
    I noticed "foxnews" in the URL. No need to see it, I know it will be garbage.
  10. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    28 Jul '11 23:01
    Originally posted by lausey
    No, species doesn't have a goal. The net result is prevalence for the examples you have given. There isn't any "success".
    good grief man! You are pedantic!
  11. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2700
    29 Jul '11 02:40
    Originally posted by lausey
    Success implies that you have a particular goal to achieve. I think you mean more prevalent.
    I agree with Stephen Jay Gould's take on the matter: The best measure of "success" of a species is prevalence in space and endurance over time. That makes bacteria the winner hands down. So Wolfgang and Gould are on the same page.

    Just read the first 45 pages of the book "Full House" to see why this makes sense.
  12. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    29 Jul '11 06:35
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I agree with Stephen Jay Gould's take on the matter: The best measure of "success" of a species is prevalence in space and endurance over time. That makes bacteria the winner hands down. So Wolfgang and Gould are on the same page.

    Just read the first 45 pages of the book "Full House" to see why this makes sense.
    It it were just prevalence over space and time, then the bacteria and roaches would win.
    But clearly compared to all the life forms, Humans are the dominant species.
    Humans can kill the roaches and bacteria. As we know, bacteria also kills a number of humans, but they don't hold us under subjection for long.
    So I would suggest that a species "wins" when
    1)its population is large(r) in quantity than the others species
    2) its population is wide-spread / global (space) and over a longer period.
    3) its population is able to "dominate" over other species as humans do.. they keep domesticated animals in farms, etc and wild animals in zoos, forest reserves.
  13. Standard memberwolfgang59
    Quiz Master
    RHP Arms
    Joined
    09 Jun '07
    Moves
    48793
    29 Jul '11 06:45
    Originally posted by shahenshah
    It it were just prevalence over space and time, then the bacteria and roaches would win.
    But clearly compared to all the life forms, Humans are the dominant species.
    Humans can kill the roaches and bacteria. As we know, bacteria also kills a number of humans, but they don't hold us under subjection for long.
    So I would suggest that a species "wins" wh ...[text shortened]... o.. they keep domesticated animals in farms, etc and wild animals in zoos, forest reserves.
    I reckon bacteria win on 2 if not all 3 counts.

    1. vastly bigger population than homo sapiens

    2. as widely spread as homo sapiens (we are the host for many)

    3. if a bacteria only survives in humans (I'm thinking friendly bacteria here) then in some sense are we not 'kept' by them?
  14. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    29 Jul '11 07:54
    Agreed, for 2 out of 3.
    As regard E.coli and other bacteria... they are in "our bodies", our labs and can be eliminated by the right antibiotics.

    Some bacteria, I think it was small-pox have been eradicated except for a small sample kept by WHO.
  15. Milton Keynes, UK
    Joined
    28 Jul '04
    Moves
    80155
    29 Jul '11 07:56
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I agree with Stephen Jay Gould's take on the matter: The best measure of "success" of a species is prevalence in space and endurance over time. That makes bacteria the winner hands down. So Wolfgang and Gould are on the same page.

    Just read the first 45 pages of the book "Full House" to see why this makes sense.
    Ok, you win. 😞
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree