»
Discussion
»
Philosophy 101
»
Of Mites and Men
| Philosophy 101 |
|
Of Mites and Men |
|
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
If insects had not become part of evolution, would there still be humans? |
||
| © Copyright 2007 Essorant - All Rights Reserved | |||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
Not as we are now. Of course, the same might be said for the insects, were humans not here. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
But was the presence of man necessary for the natural origin of any insects (or other creatures)? It doesn't seem so. But it seems the line of lifeforms from which man comes may go all the way back to an ancesteral line of insects, so that the presence of insects was needful for the origin of man to come about. Just some ponderings. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Essorant, If you believe the theory then man could be evolved from any lives. So I say, if not all insects, ladybug must be there. What a beautiful creature it is. |
||
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
I personally think humans came before evolution ... that evolution evolved from human thought. (my way of saying common descent is doubtful) But, having said that, I can take evolutionary theory at it's own word, which says that every biological form of life in the branches of the tree is dependent upon what came before it. So the answer, I think, is "no". Stephen |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Yeah, humans are not of the Acrididae family, thankfully, though we act like it sometimes, and by design we are not as resilient as the cockroach, so somehow they need us. we co-exist in many ways that we don't even know because our bodies are perfect biospheres for many varieties. I don't support all of evolution's theories. I'm still a kid in those respects. Like Why are there still apes if we evolved from them? |
||
|
Brad Member Ascendant
since 1999-08-20
Posts 5705Jejudo, South Korea |
Uh guys, we didn't evolve from insects. We share a common ancestor. And that ancestor was neither insect nor chordate (animals with a spinal chord). Same goes for chimpanzees. We didn't evolve from them, we share a common ancestor. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Of course I am not suggesting humans are directly evolved from insects, but suggesting that there is an "ancesteral" link in the insect kingdom that much earlier and less devoloped stages in the chain of evolution from which man comes needed (in conjunction with other things) in order for man to come about. Synchronically the humans probably need the presence of insects as well, just in a less obvious way. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Why are there still apes if we evolved from them? " That is a good question. I don't believe evolution ever needed a whole species to change in order for a new species to come about. If one little family is a bit isolated or is in some strange or different condition, then it may undergo a change that the rest of the species doesn't. But I believe the earth also has much more potentiality to afford more extreme changes based on weather conditions. Back then it could afford those changes, but today it cannot, otherwise it seems there would be apes simultaneously at different stages of evolving toward "human". Once the climate changes, the abilities of evolution change as well. [This message has been edited by Essorant (06-26-2007 12:11 PM).] |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
I believe in Intelligent design, so the theory that we came from apes or insects is asinine in my humble opinion. Even Darwin said that the intricacy of the human eyeball disproves evolution. Insects are a staple in the world, they keep the animals going, food-wise that is. Even the lowest chink in the food chain is important. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Ed I am not arguing against the involvement of God. I am just pondering on the evolutionary aspects. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Well Ess you said: "If insects had not become part of evolution, would there still be humans?" That suggests that you're asking if we might have come from insects. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Essorant "We didn't evolve from them, we share a common ancestor" How? |
||
|
Ron
Administrator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-05-19
Posts 8669Michigan, US |
quote: Would you mind providing a reference for that, Ed? I'd be very interested in learning where and in what context Darwin ever said that. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Ron, After I posted it, I thought I'd have problems due to the lack of a reference. I heard/read that a very long time ago; I know it's jack bubkes without a reference but what can you do? I looked around and found the quote from Darwin I read: "To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest possible degree." (Darwin 1872) I heard though that he was maybe taken out of context, so I'll keep lookin'. My point is that I don't believe in evolution, never will, and I know as an absolute fact that its theories are wrong. No one can change my mind. I know that animals have evolved throughout history and that our physical characteristics have evolved. It's the bit about how we came from apes that's wrong and downright laughable. I'll try to find the rest of that quote for ya. Have a good one. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Drauntz, quote: First off, Ess didn't say that; Brad did. Second, of all the animals we are related to primates the closest. Just in how their anatomy is set up and how ours is set up. They have opposable thumbs, as do we. They have a spinal cord. Their rib cages and so on and so forth. I think Darwin saw these similarities and automatically assumed that we came from them. It's like a child who thinks the crescent moon and a banana are related because they share the same shape.  “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Christopher
Moderator
Member Rara Avis
since 1999-08-02
Posts 8296Purgatorial Incarceration |
you can argue whether or not we descended from apes, but I think it's silly to claim disbelief in evolution. At the least, look at language, then tell me evolution doesn't exist. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
Thanks Ess. Good explanation there, but you know I'm human and I'm impatient. I wanna see one in the actual process, like fast food evolution, or fast forward on my CD player. Not really, but it would help solidify certain theories. I know the Galapagos Islands still have some interesting finds. hmm...if you were an insect. What would you be? "When I grow up I wanna be a Stick Bug!" |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: I believe I said that I don't believe we evolved from apes. quote: Of course this world has evolved. We're driving Lexuses without keys for the love of God! “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Reg, "or fast forward on my CD player" You can. Just hold down the "next" button and watch the seconds fly by. It acts as a fast forwarding. Same with "rewinding," just hold down the back button. I've been doing it for years. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
laugh. Doh! got me. I will scurry away under the rug now |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Edward Grim, I see that you are pampered with intelligence. very smart explanation. Thank you. Brad, don't always get yourself into trouble.  |
||
|
God Junior Member
since 2007-06-26
Posts 18Above you |
Evolution huh? Sounds like kindergarten finger-painting to me. |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
quote: It's possible but a little complicated. The common ancestor of both wasn't an insect so you could remove the branch that became insects and leave the branch that would eventually leas to the evolution of man. However removing insects and their antecedents causes a fairly large hole in the food chain down the millennia. Life being what it is though would probably fill the hole or niche with something similar to insects, but that raises another problem. Whatever replaces insects wouldn't necessarily be insect like, so animals which have developed to pray on insects wouldn't exist in the same form. Also some early mammals prayed on insects and as their shape and physiology was influenced by the shape and physiology of insects their decedents (including man) would have differing shapes and physiology too. In which case humans could still exist but looking a lot different than they do now. Then there's the K-T boundary to worry about, whatever replaced insects would have to survive the mass extinction that insects survived because of their physiology if they didn't the small mammals that ultimately evolved into humans would have died out with the dinosaurs. Of course you also have to consider the effect on plant life, without insects flowers wouldn't look the same and pollination and the propagation of fauna could mean that oxygen levels never ruse to a point where large land based animals could survive, in which case Humans would be aquatic So my answer is yes humans would still be here if something closely resembling insects filled the niche they left behind, though they may not resemble the humans we know and love. They might even be aquatic. quote: I agree, it's as wrong and downright laughable as the one about Chihuahuas being descended from wolves; they're like chalk and cheese, ever tried stroking a wolf? Who in their right mind believes these stories? |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: Well Mr Grinch, both being in the canine family helps a bit. Your example is just a matter of size and attitude is it not? Are there not short and tall people? Thin and fat people? Nice and snarky people? Sure. Now apes and humans. It's a little more involved than outward appearance and demeanor. So, you can keep your dogs. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
quote: You're right -- it's called DNA. But if you insist you haven't evolved from an ape -- |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
Reb, we didn't evolve from apes. You can think however you want, but I'm just tellin' ya how it is. I guess we'll all find out sooner or later. Me later, you sooner; I'm younger than you. Have a good one. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
I've already found out young Edward. Along with the scientific community. If it really bothers you that you share a common ancestor with baboons -- here's something to really ponder -- you share a common ancestor with ME! |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: So I guess by "scientific community", you mean majority. For while the majority believes this, (I chalk it up to the fact that naturalistic evolution has become a kind of 'orthodoxy') there is no small number of scientists who doubt it, due to the leaping inferences involved in that conclusion. Actually if it were only from apes to man, the inferences (though still quite gazell-like) would not be quite as incredible. It is indeed, to quote Frank Peretti "From Goo to You by way of the Zoo". Stephen. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Thanks for your comments. What were the earliest lifeforms of the line that eventually led to the evolution of man? I see that they perhaps weren't specifically "insects" but weren't they probably insect-like creatures, smaller links of a chain that would lead to something bigger and more complex? |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
C,H,O,N ---------> NC,AA, etc |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Stephanos Don't diamonds come from coal? |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
For evolution to be cogent, you have to get from non-organic molecules to DNA. So start with your non-organic molecule, and join in the highly speculative art of theorizing about abiogenesis. Or if you want to accept a naturalistic abiogenesis as a matter of "faith" or assumption, you could skip the first 1000 chapters of the unwritten evolutionary book, and begin with something like an amoeba or a paramecium. Stephen |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: Yes, and we've demonstrated it. It's not conjectural, unlike macro-evolution. Why do you ask? It has little bearing on this conversation unless chipmunks come from coal. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I am just giving an example of something lovely that goes back to much coarser beginnings. A metaphor for the Human. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Essorant, Will you please next time use star as "A metaphor for the Human", so we might just talk about the Big Bang or something like string, black hole and where they come from. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Where do the stars come from? |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Ask John. John knows everything. |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
I've met some pond scum in my time. a few busy bees. some parasites. the worst are the horse's ass. They're not even functional as a whole. ha. the most interesting are the Dung Beetles. at least they keep their crap to themselves. I've been called Cat Woman several times. Meow. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Abiogenesis isn't part of evolution theory Stephen, any more than electical theory requires an explaination of where electrons come from. There is no macroevolution. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
I don't see how "abiogenesis" should be excluded. Where did the evolution of the first living thing on earth come from, if not from the evolution of a nonliving thing? Even the bible says that Adam was ultimatly shaped from the dust and that Eve was wrought from Adam's rib. Very many, if not most creation myths acknowledge that a shaping and transition in nature of nonliving to living took place. |
||
|
Edward Grim Senior Member
since 2005-12-18
Posts 1154Greenville, South Carolina |
quote: It doesn't bother me that I share a common ancestor with baboons. I already told drauntz that our anatomies have close similarities. That doesn't mean we're related to them because we're not. And I don't mind sharing a common ancestor with you; you're a pretty smart guy. At least you don't swing through the trees... often. Have a good one. “Well all the apostles, they’re sittin’ on the swings, sayin’ I’d sell off my savior for a set of new rings.” |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Actually Reb, abiogenesis IS a part of the evolutionary idea as a whole, whatever you may say. It just happens to be a part that involves a complete scientific roadblock. Are you suggesting that you don't believe molecules evolved into more complex molecules and then into replicating cells? Remember that the philosophical idea of evolution, or gradualism (which dates back to the pre-Socratic philosophers) is the impetus behind all evolutionary theory and assumption. The most famous evolutionary thinkers had already accepted this idea well before any scientific mechanisms were proffered. And yes there is a distinction between micro-evolution and macro-evolution, though some would deny it. Micro-evolution involves observable changes within the genetic limitations of a species. Macro-evolution is attributing things like eyes, bones, organs, cellular systems, and species themselves to simple mutation, and principles of survival and reproduction. One can reasonably be called empirical. The other has more gap space than can reasonably lend to empiricism, especially if we are to take Darwin's own words seriously about small incremental changes which also have to be advantageous to survival. Microevolution is scientific. Macroevolution is Philosophic. Stephen [This message has been edited by Stephanos (06-28-2007 04:02 PM).] |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Summer repeat time?/pip/Forum6/HTML/001326-2.html#25 |
||
|
Grinch Member Elite
since 2005-12-31
Posts 2929Whoville |
Stephen, If evolution isn't the answer what is? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
magic we need more |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Grinch, Special Creation by God. You must remember that in the murky recesses of time, I am scientifically agnostic. And so is everyone else. I'm only sure that God did it, and that it didn't happen naturalistically. I believe that we can take certain revalatory things on authority, especially when they square with how most people intuitively view themselves and the universe. Natural revelation invites special revelation. The lack of a detailed alternative scientific theory doesn't help the implausibility of another. Regina, We certainly need more than the idea of a magical impersonal nature which generated the complexity of life, quite on its own. Spontaneous generation has been scientifically ruled out for quite some time. Life begets life. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Wouldn't the more altruistic approach be to sacrifice some of one's own theory to make a compromise with other peoples theories? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
With all due respect Stephen, unless you want to come up here and start walking across Lake Michigan in the summertime I'm going to have to assume that you're agnostic about God too. Or, alternatively -- Monteagle always got in my way when I was trying to drive to Chattanooga in the winter time -- if you could slide that out of the way! You never did answer my question though -- True or false: Through any two points there is exactly one line. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
quote: You're at least right about one thing ... that it would be an assumption. quote: Okay. Sure, I suppose. But why? Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"Through any two points there is exactly one line. " Not always. Imagine the two points are sticking out of the wall five feet. Within that five feet there is enough room to thread more than one line thro the two points. |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Is Geometry science? Do you live in a house or building of some sort? |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ess, a point only has coordinates. |
||
|
Stephanos
since 2000-07-31
Posts 3618Statesboro, GA, USA |
Yes and no. Geometry, being axiomatic, has more in common with logic and mathematics, than any general or biological science would (or should). And yes, I live in a ranch-style house. Stephen |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
Local, "Ess, a point only has coordinates." My example is two points that are big enough that not just one line goes thro them. What is wrong about that? |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
"Through any two points there is exactly one line." well I'm no math whiz, but I'll say the answer is false. can be two lines, one atop the other, with infinite solutions, collinear, but they end up being the same line. Hmm tricky. Stephen, quote: No arguments there, but I'd like to add that sometimes it's nice to give the complexities a rest. If we'd just stand back and open our eyes to the beauty of life, there's much to become amazed and filled with wonder about. One can't help but feel small, yet grateful for the magic and resplendent glory of our universe. Michelangelo comes to mind. It wasn't until he saw what he felt was God's art that he was able to follow through with his own in the Sistine Chapel. Our existence may not be a spontaneous result, but experiences can be spontaneous and personal. we need more magic between us in the form of kindness, around us in the form of cures for what's killing us. not everyone's going to agree on the source, immediately. |
||
|
Essorant Member Elite
since 2002-08-10
Posts 4769Regina, Saskatchewan; Canada |
"can be two lines, one atop the other, with infinite solutions, collinear, but they end up being the same line. Hmm tricky." Good points, Regina. You could send one line thro the tops of the points and one line thro the bottoms, or send them diagonally so they make an x in the space between. Then the space in the middle between shall be a square or four triangles. Nevertheless, I doubt very much that geometryplay is going to figure out the wonder of evolution for us. |
||
|
Drauntz Member Elite
since 2007-03-16
Posts 2905Los Angeles California |
Essorant, You are right. point and line are imaginary reference in geometry. It will come out anything based on how you draw it. Of course, you can only draw one straight line between two point. But you may draw limitless curved lines. And what is straight line anyway? even light is bended by gravity. which means, any line you draw are already bended by gravity. and your shift again? have a nice day, sir! |
||
|
sullivanthepoet.com Member
since 2007-06-28
Posts 154Devon, England |
Just to throw a spaniard in the works... It really is too long for you guys to ask me to retype it here (on a pictorial background and as a new kid I haven't figured out if I can post jpegs yet):- BUT if you drift across to www.sullivanthepoet.com and seek out "And made they man" you will find an even more perverse slant on the current argument which, given the good natured cut and thrust of this debate, I suspect you will have a lot of fun with... "Live free in the world and owe allegiance to no man" |
||
|
Local Rebel Member Ascendant
since 1999-12-21
Posts 5767Southern Abstentia |
Ron, You're showing far more restraint than I thought possible.  |
||
|
rwood Member Elite
since 2000-02-29
Posts 3793Tennessee |
That's because he's super uber cool. |
||
|
|
⇧ top of page ⇧ |
|
| All times are ET (US). All dates are in Year-Month-Day format. | ||
