nested heirarchies as evidence against darwinian evolution

The word "coelacanth" refers to an entire family (maybe superfamily or even suborder, I'm not sure) of fish that had its origins at least as far back as the Devonian Era (around 400 million years ago). Today's coelacanths (2 species) come from the genus Latimeria, which does not appear anywhere in the fossil record. The two living species are not the same as the ancient coelacanths, and have changed quite a bit since then.For instance, modern coelacanths are adapted to very deep waters, and, in fact, cannot stand the low pressures of shallower waters. Many, if not most, of ancient coelacanths were not deep trench fish: that is why we often found their remains on what used to be shallow reefs and shorelines.Just because the modern coelacanth looks a lot like ancient coelacanths, doesn't mean it hasn't changed in 400 million years. It is a different animal. Therefore, even though I understand your argument, it is invalid because the premise that coelacanths haven't changed is false.

---

Signed,
Nobody Important (just Bluejay)

That is one of the problems with many people attempting to understand evolution. Looks can be deceiving. Dragonflies from the carboniferous look similar to modern dragonflies but are totally different species. The same with gingko trees from the same period that are different from the one living species. I think much of this problem occurs by the term "living fossil."

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other

Wait, I am not talking about apes whatsoever here.My main point about the Coelacanth (Page not found (404 Error)- Canadian Museum of Nature) is that after millions of years why hasn't the population completely changed, if mutations are expected to occur in any individuals at anytime?If a part of the population changed, then I guess it wouldn't be called Coelacanth anymore. But then we should be able to trace the ancestors of that new Coelacanth species to the original one? Shouldn't we? Why would the transitional forms disappear and not the master form?About humans, I guess we can say we are the ending point of evolution. Who or what is above humans right now? nothing IMO.

quote:

---

If this was to happen, there would be huge gaps in the food chain and the environment would have countless dead zones.

---

The food chain is an extremely complex and fragile system, that's for sure. But it doesn't prevent species from mutating, since food chain is part of the pressures/stress that act upon natural selection.

My bad. I should have replied to your previous post, where you pasted the original post, about apes. Coelacanth is a genus. In your logic, a brown trout is a rainbow trout. Exactly how are you defining human success?

The fact we're talking about such things is proof we're above (at least intellectually) everything that exists. Also the fact we talk, reason, use logic, derive conclusions, discover the world, use physics, chemistry etc...are pretty good proof of our superiority and dominion over the earth.Don't you think? or maybe you'd rather be a fish or a bird of some kind? which is not bad in itself, but you will miss what makes life exciting.

None of that makes us the end point of evolution. We could evolve further, no?All evolution "cares" about is your ability to pass on your genetic information. You have no way of knowing that.

Populations experience stasis when ther is little to no pressure for them to change, like when they fit a niche almost perfectly. Squid and bacteria, to name two.

I'll grant you the fact that we are above the other species intellectually, but that does not make intellect the goal of evolution. It certainly doesn't make us the most successful species either.Dominion is a double edged sword. We have been unable to eradicate malaria spreading mosquitos. Cities are full of rats and cockroaches against our wishes. I'm happy being human but I have no idea what goes through the mind of a fish or bird.

quote:

---

Squid and bacteria, to name two.

---

As far as I know, they don't have the power to destroy the earth (Nuclear bomb).Why would you think we are not at the pinnacle of the living world? It's true we don't have 8 arms, or we don't have wings, but we can make robots, planes, rockets...I mean it's obvious (to me), that we have the world for ourselves. Our knowledge and technology is certainly not complete (will it ever be?), but it will increase and increase as knowledge increase. No other living thing can do or be like that.
Humans are the only ones to ponder about their fate, origins, and everything that we ponder about.

It's true that we are not the most numerous on earth.
I guess insects are the winners (or even Bacteria) then.
They are extremely useful for the ecosystem of the earth, without insects i can't imagine what the earth would be like. Since there wouldn't be recycling, most of pollination, and other things that are useful for the ecosystem and the balance of the living world.So I guess Ants/Bacteria... are successful in colonizing the world, and they are needed and huge amounts, so I guess that's why they are so many. But they are still not above us.It made me think of something though:
Are humans useful for the earth?
Since most insects/micro-organisms/animals are useful for the balance and the ecosystem, I don't see where do humans play a role in the ecosystem.
Just a thought.Edited by DogToDolphin, : added a thought

Huh. Me, I think that beings who can just live and be content are superior, but maybe that's the problem with subjectively chooseing arbitrary criteria for "superiority". And I seem to recall the last time folks advocated having dominion over the earth, they were put on trial in Nuremburg in 1946. Having or desiring "dominion over the earth" doesn't seem like too much of an attractive trait to me.- I also prefer being white and male. I wouldn't say that either whites or males are superior to other people, though.Edited by Chiroptera, : No reason given.

---

If I had a million dollars, I'd buy you a monkey.
Haven't you always wanted a monkey?
-- The Barenaked Ladies

quote:

---

And I seem to recall the last time folks advocated having dominion over the earth, they were put on trial in Nuremburg in 1946

---

Oh come on, I was not advocating that dominion over the earth (meaning in that case, dominion over other people) was good; if this is what you inferred from what I wrote.I am just stating our position as humans towards the rest of the living world. We are the ones who put animals in cages and display them in zoo (once again I am not justifying that practice, since I'm anti-zoo, if zoo means animals in small cages).I am not content to be in the superior category, actually I don't care that we are more intelligent than fishes or mosquitoes. It's just the fact, the earth belongs to man, man can do whatever he wants to it. It doesn't justify bad behavior and abuses of course.Aren't you enjoying your time on the Internet, watching movies, write about things, philosophy and the list goes on...all those things you couldn't do if you were not human.But then it's my opinion, but I quite don't understand why it's hard to admit we (humanity) are superior to the rest of the living world.

Man himself, each of us is food and home to billions and billions of organisms. I've read that, by number, the cells that are contained in your skin are 90% NOT you. They are the others that use us.We can not, in fact, do whatever we want with the earth withtout killing ourselves. We can not stop the real rulers of earth doing what they have been doing for 3 billion years.Gould pointed out that 3 billion years ago it was the age of bacteria and that it is still the age of bacteria. Long after we are gone the bacteria will rule the earth. They are simply far better at carrying on under the widest range of conditions then we are.Intelligence has not shown itself to a match for their capabilities so far. Maybe it will in the next century or so but right now they have the track record to bet on.Why should anyone but a human think that intelligence is better than, for example, surviving naked on the surface of the moon or living in hot acid?Edited by NosyNed, : No reason given.

What does that have to do with the price of tea in China!? hintYour claim in Message 228 was:

quote:

---

About humans, I guess we can say we are the ending point of evolution. Who or what is above humans right now? nothing IMO.

---

If I am to follow what you are saying... You're saying that humans are at the top because we can destroy the earth!?Why THAT arbitrary definition?Are you sure that you're not just making shit up? I do think that we are. But that is because of our relationship with god, not because of our evolutionary position. Our evolutionary position is not at the pinnacle.Squid are more "highly evolved" than humans. Bacteria outnumber us. Whatever arbitrary defintion of the pinncale you want to make up really has no say. Maybe you haven't seen everything yet and you are missing the things that make it not so obvious You have no way of knowing that.

But you are still confusing intellect and success. It is doubtful we will have superior numbers than ants, yet our intellect far exceeds theirs. Yes, but most humans don't have those luxuries. Western life has clouded your perception of our species as a whole.Anyway, the whole point is that intellect is not the goal of evolution. We are not the end point because evolution is not self aware.