Originally posted by galveston75You 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.
I wonder why we didn't evolve better brains then apes? Did evolution screw up? I thought we were the better result of evolution?
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.
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. 🙂
Originally posted by shahenshahI think that you will find various bacteria, viruses and insects are more succesfull than Man.
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. 🙂
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe 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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by galveston75The 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?
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.
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.
Originally posted by galveston75I noticed "foxnews" in the URL. No need to see it, I know it will be garbage.
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/
Originally posted by lauseyI 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.
Success implies that you have a particular goal to achieve. I think you mean more prevalent.
Just read the first 45 pages of the book "Full House" to see why this makes sense.
Originally posted by SoothfastIt it were just prevalence over space and time, then the bacteria and roaches would win.
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.
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.
Originally posted by shahenshahI reckon bacteria win on 2 if not all 3 counts.
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.
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?
Originally posted by SoothfastOk, you win. 😞
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.