1
   

Is it wrong to say "human beings evolved from..."?

 
 
Ray
 
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 04:48 pm
On another thread John Jones is nagging me because he thinks that it's wrong to say that "human beings evolved from single-celled organisms."
How valid is his argument? Or is he just trying to annoy the heck out of people?
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 1 • Views: 528 • Replies: 8
No top replies

 
boomerang
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 05:34 pm
The second thing.

Don't get him started on mental illness or mathmatics either!

I have discovered that he is best ignored.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 05:41 pm
well, I have to admit "evolved" is a loaded word, it implies "improved."
0 Replies
 
FreeDuck
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:05 pm
Ditto what boomer said. Something that's a lot of fun with said member is to give him a taste of his own medicine.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:13 pm
Evolution simply means change, and possibly increased complexity. Improvement has nothing to do with it.
0 Replies
 
dyslexia
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:13 pm
it's implied.
0 Replies
 
Acquiunk
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:23 pm
In the popular understanding of evolution, it implies progress (improvement). As far as biologists are concerned, the scientific use of the term simply means change.
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:48 pm
"Improvement" is just the view from atop the hill. Its hardly valid and , if dinosaurs werent wiped out, who knows what they would have evolved through.Since genomes preserve the history of the evolution of species, they clearly display the great similarities between living species. Thats because genes, once incorporated into the "barcode" dont have to be re-evolved, they are merely added unto. The increasing similarity of mans geno,me to a mouses is about 25%, but those percentages are in important morphological features and behavior. While there is no gene for an animals "left nut", compound genic arrays are responsible for the morphologies of animals. As far as jumping from bacteria to unicellular animals, there are many theories about how it happened. Margulis's "capturing genomes" makes as much sense as any since many plants and animals share entire groups of genes that display specific morphological features, for example, keratin appears in the shells of arthropods and the stalks of lichens. These genesequences are EXACT. Somebody passed a note while teacher wasnt looking. Margulis has had more acceptanceof late , to what was earlier considered a wild ass hypothesis.

As far as "improvement implied" , its a game of dice, with maybe 10000 individual dice, its nothing but ADAPTATION.
Vraptors had at least 30 species and each had some unique feature that , had they persisted as a family, they might be the pinnacle species today. Drivin their new VelociPorsches and sipping "Dragon wine" at Trader Vics.
0 Replies
 
Sanctuary
 
  1  
Reply Tue 16 Aug, 2005 06:50 pm
No, it's not wrong to say 'evolved' et al - for it's scientific fact and reality. If anyone has a problem with that, then kindly protest the use of the phrase 'and on the first day...'
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Is it wrong to say "human beings evolved from..."?
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 05/17/2024 at 12:51:45