I don't believe in it, or natural selection. I feel like if every living thing on Earth has a natural order to it, then it's too big of a stretch to feel that it is the result of complete disorder.
Also it makes no sense for us humans to have developed so much proportionately better than every other species if it's random selection through mutation.
Finally it doesn't seem like even scientists know how it works. They've tried to replicate the process by gene splicing with beneficial traits using I think a sheep, but it died very quickly.
English
-
[quote]I don't believe in it, or natural selection. I feel like if every living thing on Earth has a natural order to it, then it's too big of a stretch to feel that it is the result of complete disorder.[/quote] Evolution isn't completely chaotic. In fact, you can use human romantic relationships as an example. For instance, there are some guys with blue eyes, and some with brown eyes. If most girls prefer blue eyes, then guys with blue eyes are more likely to reproduce and the blue eye gene will be passed on more frequently than the brown eye gene. Before long, everyone has blue eyes. That's evolution. [quote]Also it makes no sense for us humans to have developed so much proportionately better than every other species if it's random selection through mutation.[/quote] We aren't better. We're weaker, we're smaller, we're slower, worse jumpers, worse eyesight, etc. The only thing that makes us the so-called apex predator is our ability to develop and use complex tools. Without that, there would be much less humans in the world. We would more frequently be hunted by lions, wolves, crocodiles, eagles, etc. We are not better than other animals. [quote]Finally it doesn't seem like even scientists know how it works. They've tried to replicate the process by gene splicing with beneficial traits using I think a sheep, but it died very quickly.[/quote] They know exactly how it works. And we have replicated it well too. Orange carrots, larger crops, juicier crops, crops more resistant to diseases, different breeds of dog...
-
Bearbeitet von Toonstrack: 3/7/2018 1:22:48 PM1. Well that would be a good analogy if most girls did prefer guys with blue eyes, but that isn't the case.. Also eye color isn't really a trait that is beneficial for survival, even if some girls prefer it. I don't think there are too many out there who would be with someone because of their eye color, but romantic relationships and their health are largely controllable by us. 2. Which leads me to my next point, that despite everything you said that is true, we are still the superior species because we have the abilities of conscience and choice over instinct. While their ability to find a mate is largely controlled by luck or other uncertain occurences, we can improve or reduce our chances of finding one by our own actions(lol) We are better. Every animal on Earth is subject to humanity, and to be honest there's a bit of ordered hierarchy even there. 3. Every time they try to do the process on an active living and breathing thing, it fails. Dog breeds, and to an extent, the mentions of plant "breeding", are more evidence against evolution, to me, considering these breeds had to be quite literally created through controlled and planned breeding by the hand of humans. How many species wouldn't be here if we just let natural selection take course? I'm betting a lot of them wouldn't be here.
-
[quote]1. Well that would be a good analogy if most girls did prefer guys with blue eyes, but that isn't the case.. Also eye color isn't really a trait that is beneficial for survival, even if some girls prefer it. I don't think there are too many out there who would be with someone because of their eye color, but romantic relationships and their health are largely controllable by us.[/quote] Mostly irrelevant as it was an analogy. The idea was you would compare it to other physical aspects in other animals. [quote]2. Which leads me to my next point, that despite everything you said that is true, we are still the superior species because we have the abilities of conscience and choice over instinct. While their ability to find a mate is largely controlled by luck or other uncertain occurences, we can improve or reduce our chances of finding one by our own actions(lol) We are better. Every animal on Earth is subject to humanity, and to be honest there's a bit of ordered hierarchy even there.[/quote] Almost all animals have conscience and choice over instinct. Humans are influenced by instinct just as much as a dog, the only difference is we describe what's happening. It is also no more luck in other animals as it is for us. Do you think a person chooses to be small or tall? And yet humans are getting taller over time because girls prefer tall men. Also, it isn't just humans who improve their chances of romance by their actions. Birds sing. Birds of paradise dance. Lion seals fight to the death. Humans do the same. They're no different. No animal is subject to humanity. Humans get eaten by insects just as much as any other animal. Mistreat a dog, it will tear out your throat. There was a recent story about a lion killing a poacher and leaving its head by its gun. If that doesn't prove my point to you, nothing will. [quote]3. Every time they try to do the process on an active living and breathing thing, it fails. Dog breeds, and to an extent, the mentions of plant "breeding", are more evidence against evolution, to me, considering these breeds had to be quite literally created through controlled and planned breeding by the hand of humans. How many species wouldn't be here if we just let natural selection take course? I'm betting a lot of them wouldn't be here.[/quote] The fact that it doesn't boost survivability doesn't mean it wasn't evolution. When smog was a big issue, moths evolved black colouring. That boosted survivability. When the smog died down, they were left with a disadvantage - but that doesn't change the fact that it [i]was[/i] evolution.
-
Fair enough for the first point But for your second, I have to disagree here. Animals will fight back if mistreated but if the human is well prepared it still cannot win. Humans have adapted in a different way, through creations of their owns, tools, guns, books that imbue us with knowledge to train and tame these beasts. Animals are absolutely subject to humans, they fear us. They avoid us when they can and usually only attack if their life is threatened. It is a rare occurence that a beast will actively hunt for humans, there is a reason why. And for animals, instinct has much more of an effect than it does on humans. Like I said, there are physical advantages like being tall but that doesn't automatically mean you will reproduce before a short guy. Theres a whole lot of other things that are involved. For example, lions and tigers can't really become better people and improve their personalities to improve their chances of finding someone, it just doesn't work like that for them. They are all different but it's mostly hierarchy and birthright that will determine their capability for offspring. All things considered while they have similarities human are distinct from every species on Earth because we are the only ones that control it. We possess the capability to erase all life from Earth right now, animals cannot do that. We can and have adversely effected the lively hoods of other species, sadly to the point of extinction. There isn't and has never been another species like this, not since dinosaurs rules the earth, and even then, given time humans would have subjected them too.
-
[quote]All things considered while they have similarities human are distinct from every species on Earth because we are the only ones that control it. We possess the capability to erase all life from Earth right now, animals cannot do that. We can and have adversely effected the lively hoods of other species, sadly to the point of extinction. There isn't and has never been another species like this, not since dinosaurs rules the earth, and even then, given time humans would have subjected them too.[/quote] To me, this is more proof that humans are not better. No other animals cause extinction, not because they are weaker but because, well, why would you? [spoiler]Note, I know other animals have caused extinction, but humans caused that in some way, e.g. grey squirrels introduced to the UK.[/spoiler]
-
Better morally? Absolutely not. But better survivability, yes
-
Only because of complex tools though. Like I said, take that away and humans are nothing.
-
They do understand it and have replicated it quite frequently.
-
"Better" is kind of relative. Compared to other species humans havnt been around long, and while we possess reason, we seem to be doing a pretty good job of ruining our planet. We definitely dont utilize resources in ballence with nature like other species. So to me, we are not better in terms of sustaining our species continued survival. It doesn't matter how intelligent we were if we are extinct in 10,000 years.
-
Idk, it still seems better because we are still dominant over every other species as of now.
-
"Better" is kind of relative. Compared to other species humans havnt been around long, and while we possess reason, we seem to be doing a pretty good job of ruining our planet. We definitely dont utilize resources in ballence with nature like other species. So to me, we are not better in terms of sustaining our species continued survival. It doesn't matter how intelligent we were if we are extinct in 10,000 years.