Who’s the best?
by subacati
Are we really th dominant lifeform on this planet? …
According to the theory of evolution, ants are the most evolved creature on earth. Having only two chromosomes for the male ant and the female being haploid, i.e. having only one chromosome because she hatches from an unfertilized egg.
Humans have 46 chromosomes as do chimpanzee's.
The simplist creature of all is protozoa with over a thousand chromosomes.
.
According to the theory, life evolves by gradual reduction of genetic material through a process called natural selection. As animals evolve they lose dna and hence chromosomes.
So accordingly then, surely ants are more evolved than humans?
subacati 
That's very interesting! :sherlock:
Logic is not always real! 😉
Wow, some enlightment is always good! :happy:
What I still don't understand is that the simple lifeforms have the most dna. Its like a computer program that blinks a light on and off consisting of a few gigabytes of code but the latest windows package only needing ten to fifty bytes of code. Logic says it should be the other way round and in computers it is. :confused:
But why must we rely only on chromosomes and mediocre research to draw a conclusive evidence that ants are more developed than humans.DNA is not only the factor that uplifts a species and brings evolution but surely ants are great topic for a discussion. But humans are by far the most evolved creature. We are the reflection of earth…… That was too much said though:rolleyes:
Advanced and evolved don't mean the same thing. Evolution theory is mostly about DNA and natural selection. It's called a theory because it cannot be demonstrated in any experiment. Although natural selection can be demonstrated, the process whereby one species evolves into another has yet to be demonstrated. Ants have evolved to the point where they can reproduce without intercourse. If you check it out on wikipedia you can see what I mean. .Did you know that it is theoretically possible for a human to mate with a chimp?
Ants of course.
Is that so? Evolutionary theory covers everything, doesn't it? I dont know if it's largely based on DNA composition,structure and natural selection because Darwin was more naturalist and less scientist."the process whereby one species evolves into another has yet to be demonstrated"Aren't bridge animals loud and clear live examples of the demonstration you're talking about??I do repsect their ability to reproduce without intercourse and their well organized society but aren't bees also of same genre?? hmmm their DNA level could be crust-zenith though… yeah! And did you know it's possible to create Chimeras?
Basicly what I'm saying is that the current theory is faulty. It's got a lot of holes in it and these holes are partly to blame for the lack of definitive evidence, and partly as a result of the lack of definitive evidence. .The principles of modern science requires that a theory be tested by repeatable stable experiment. The best form of experiment will give a result that either proves the theory true or proves it false. An experiment that only shows one state (i.e. can only prove it true if it succeeds but can't prove it false if it fails,) can be challenged and later lead to a different conclusion..I believe in evolution as a mechanism whereby God has created all life. But I don't agree with some aspects of the theory and to date, experimental evidence also suggests that some aspects should be reconsidered. .If you read about genetics or you read about programming, You realise that you are reading about the same thing. Yet we still haven't developed a system of programming that can evolve and upgrade itself without external input.
The really big question is where did the first DNA and RNA strands come from. without these two, there can be no life. All known naturally accuring sources of these two molecules come from a living organism. :confused:..P.S: the english word is hydrolysis(I think :left:)
Well, there are many holes in all of evolutionary theories. Why did RNA replied itself in order to create DNA? How did RNA know that it had to fold itself in order to protect itself from hidrólisis? (dunno the transl. sorry), that is, when the first forms of life were about to be created.
Im biometrics student!!! "The principles of modern science requires that a theory be tested by repeatable stable experiment"Einstein's theories didnot practically speak until late 1940's yet he revolutionized Modern Physics. If theory is strong enough i dont think stable practical is needed for an example you could take 'Terraforming'."Yet we still haven't developed a system of programming that can evolve and upgrade itself without external input."True! But take a look at our(humans') remarkable achievementhttp://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9057319
Of course, Einstein's theories were often not accepted or more often misunderstood by his contempories. And they were only introduced in high school curriculum once they had been shown to be valid.Evolution is taught in schools as if it were solid proven fact, yet the only aspect of the theory that has ever been demonstrated is natural selection.The theory does not explain how the cambrian explosion took place over such a short space of time or why some species appear on the fossil record over a million years ago in exactly the same form that they are found today (with no evidence of any preceding form. ).Biologists agree that life can only proceed from life leading many to speculate that life was introduced to the earth when a meteorite containing living microbes crashed into the ocean. That theory introduces another question, where did those microbes come from and how did they develope there? Somehow, somewhere, life began. It began on a sterile lifeless world. This must be reproduceable under laboratory conditions unless there is a metaphysical explanation for this. .If an archeologist finds a row of rocks that form a straight line piled on top of one another, he concludes that it is a wall built by human or other sentient life. the idea being that organisation = intelligence. why is a different conclusion drawn by scientists in genetic research?
Einstein's theories were not only misunderstood, they were also undigested, can't blame his contempories cause In his time,it was too inhumanic theory to be understood. Relativity is really hard concept needless to say digesting it is beyond that so it took some time to contemplate. ;)Evolutionary theory makes sense. It aint no nonesense theory.Have you considered the fossil of horse before argueing that there's no solid proof?? It's a working progress,they shall have answers to your questions soon. If you ask me i feel like we're never gonna find the answers that are hidden beneath surface unless we prioritize the deep ocean life. Studying marine life's not that easy but they can probably answer our questions regarding evolution and darwinsm and you know how hard it is to launch Deep ocean research. That might be one of the reason we're not upto the task,we're stucked!!The answer to your question is because genetics research is not a joke! We're only in 21st century. It's been only few decades people have learned to trust that science is a answer,science is the answer but we have much to learn.Our database is too pathetic draw an acute premise