58
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 9:
Line 9: + + +
Debate:If it could be unambiguously demonstrated that man is NOT the most evolved animal, then would this support or refute ther idea of Creation by God? (view source)
Revision as of 15:29, April 26, 2007
, 15:29, April 26, 2007no edit summary
I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
I completely doubt the validity of any of their research. But if it is true that humans have had less microevolution than chimps, I think it shows that, since humans were created in God's own image, it takes fewer changes to get it "right". I think, physically, we have always been alright. --[[User:David R|<<-David R->>]] 11:25, 26 April 2007 (EDT)
::Auld Nick is right of course, nothing is "more evolved" than anything else by the standards of the question. Certain species are more suited to survive and reproduce within their environmental niche. That's all. Anything that is ill-suited to survive in its niche is likely to become extinct - it isn't "less evolved". The "most evolved" species is whichever one has undergone the most genetic mutations since it diverged from the first concestor. That could just as easily be a fly or a germ as an ape or homo sapiens.
[[User:Olly|Olly]] 11:29, 26 April 2007 (EDT)