Ask Experts Questions for FREE Help !
Ask
    5fingerdiscount's Avatar
    5fingerdiscount Posts: 1, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #1

    Jan 30, 2007, 05:29 AM
    Anti-evolution or Freaks of nature?
    Here's a question I would like to pose:

    Survival of a species depends on it's ability to adapt to its environment. Humans, however, adapted the entire planet to suit ourselves. Would this not be some sort of anomalic 'anti-evolution'? And if so, what would be the purpose for a species evolving as we have?

    Or, could it be that we are just freaks of nature?

    :confused: :confused: :confused:
    Capuchin's Avatar
    Capuchin Posts: 5,255, Reputation: 656
    Uber Member
     
    #2

    Jan 30, 2007, 05:39 AM
    I think as a species we have adapted all too well to the environment and learnt to use it in a way to suit our means, I look at is as being ultimately adapted for the environment.
    Nosnosna's Avatar
    Nosnosna Posts: 434, Reputation: 103
    Full Member
     
    #3

    Jan 30, 2007, 05:50 AM
    There are two thoughts that spring immediately to mind:

    First, since the goal of evolution is not to adapt to ones environment, but to survive, the fact that our methodology is different from other species doesn't mean that they evolve and we don't. On the contrary, that there are different approaches seems to me a strength of evolution.

    Second, adapting our environments to ourselves isn't unique. Every animal that creates a nest, burrow or den is doing the same thing on a micro level. The primary difference is that we have the ability to look beyond our own lifespan and affect directed change across multiple generations.
    atoms55's Avatar
    atoms55 Posts: 2, Reputation: 1
    New Member
     
    #4

    Feb 17, 2007, 11:41 AM
    Comment on Capuchin's post
    Clea and informed answer
    DUKE-OF-URL's Avatar
    DUKE-OF-URL Posts: 23, Reputation: 6
    New Member
     
    #5

    Jun 23, 2007, 05:27 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by 5fingerdiscount
    Here's a question I would like to pose:

    Survival of a species depends on it's ability to adapt to its environment. Humans, however, adapted the entire planet to suit ourselves. Would this not be some sort of anomalic 'anti-evolution'? And if so, what would be the purpose for a species evolving as we have?

    Or, could it be that we are just freaks of nature?

    :confused: :confused: :confused:
    I would first study the theory of evolution deeply and then remember its just a theory.
    Capuchin's Avatar
    Capuchin Posts: 5,255, Reputation: 656
    Uber Member
     
    #6

    Jun 23, 2007, 05:32 PM
    Quote Originally Posted by DUKE-OF-URL
    I would first study the theory of evolution deeply and then remember its just a theory.
    I will keep repeating this until you understand me, or engage with me:

    In scientific usage, a theory does not mean an unsubstantiated guess or hunch, as it can in everyday speech. A theory is a logically self-consistent model or framework for describing the behavior of a related set of natural or social phenomena. It originates from or is supported by experimental evidence (see scientific method). In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

    "Just a theory" is somewhat oxymoronic, and definitely misleading.
    ebaines's Avatar
    ebaines Posts: 12,130, Reputation: 1307
    Expert
     
    #7

    Jun 25, 2007, 10:37 AM
    Quote Originally Posted by Capuchin
    In this sense, a theory is a systematic and formalized expression of all previous observations that is predictive, logical and testable.

    "Just a theory" is somewhat oxymoronic, and definitely misleading.
    I agree, but unfortunately even some scientists use the term "theory" too liberally. Examples: string theory really falls into the realm of conjecture (in my view), as do the various "theories" regarding multiple alternate universes. These are notions that can not be observed or tested, and at least until observable predictions can be made from them, they are not full theories. Perhaps if scientists used the "theory" word more consistently it would be easier to make this argument stick.

    In a similar vein, ideas such as Intelligent Design and Creationism don't rise to the level of being scientific theories either, but at best can be described as "conjectures." They don't even make the "just a theory" cut.
    Xrayman's Avatar
    Xrayman Posts: 1,177, Reputation: 193
    Ultra Member
     
    #8

    Jun 25, 2007, 04:21 PM
    perhaps the term hypothesis RATHER than theory is what you refer to? ^^^^

Not your question? Ask your question View similar questions

 

Question Tools Search this Question
Search this Question:

Advanced Search

Add your answer here.


Check out some similar questions!

Evolution [ 9 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Evolution [ 2 Answers ]

As I understand it, according to Evolution Theory, in the vast passage of time in the past a species has gradually evolved (and will evolve in future) into another species when (1) the instinct to survive has "warned" a species that its survival was doomed through rise of some hostile element in...

Human Evolution [ 29 Answers ]

If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes on this earth? Why didn't they evolve?

What's the best Anti Spyware and the best Anti Virus? [ 4 Answers ]

Just curious as to what works best for you? Take care, Happy Holidays to you and yours

Intelligent Design & Evolution [ 190 Answers ]

Ok I know that this is a contentious issue, but I believe that it needs to be talked about. This has been mentioned in other threads, but I thought that it was time for a thread of its own. The main problem that I have is how can Intelligent Design (ID) be taught as a SCIENCE when it is based...


View more questions Search