| We hope you enjoy your visit. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. Join our community! If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
| What's the Difference? | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: May 25 2009, 03:16 AM (279 Views) | |
| Deleted User | May 25 2009, 03:16 AM Post #1 |
|
Deleted User
|
It's argued below humans are not unique only more advanced. I would stick with different degree, amount, of for example intelligence, emotion, etc. Perhaps just different. I would not argue more advanced. Progress would imply purpose and design.
|
|
|
| ngc1514 | May 25 2009, 06:56 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Don't forget that the human eye is built inside out and a definite example of non-intelligent design. The blind spot that fascinates kids is the result of this inside out construction. Why do we have this second rate optic? Two reasons: 1. It's the same optical design as found in other vertebrates, so it's a legacy of our evolutionary path and 2. It works ok. No reason for evolution to change it.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2006/11/denton-vs-squid.html Edited by ngc1514, May 25 2009, 06:57 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Deleted User | May 25 2009, 07:52 AM Post #3 |
|
Deleted User
|
"It works ok." That, I think is what evolution is all about. Not improving or progressing to some perfection, but what's OK, what just good enough to survive. We can think of evolution as following a sort of hill climbing model towards best fitness, but in a landscape that keeps changing. |
|
|
| ngc1514 | May 25 2009, 09:07 AM Post #4 |
![]()
Moderator
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
The whole idea of evolution being aimed towards some goal or perfection is a common mistake and a flaw in many of the creationist arguments against it. It's all about reproductive success or that "Selfish gene" Dawkins writes about. Of course, science brought a lot of that on themselves with the evolutionary "tree" with the tall, straight trunk that usually had man sitting at the top. I expect religion had a lot to do with that representation; the desire to fit science to the preconceived notion that man was, in some fashion, a pinnacle of evolutionary pressure. Gould would frequently say that evolution is not a tree, but a bush with thousands of twigs and man sits at the end of one of those twigs. Just as every other species alive today sits at the end of its own evolutionary path - not higher or lower, just different. |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · RV AND CAMPING DISCUSSION · Next Topic » |








![]](http://z3.ifrm.com/static/1/pip_r.png)

12:41 AM Jul 14
