Alvin Powell On Humanity and Evolution

Humanity is the focus of liberal evolutionary scientists as being the enemy of the survival of the earth. While viewing microbes as the only adaptable animal that will survive. Some scientists even suggested humans are interfering with the unthinking process of evolution. Alvin Powell wrote an article about this very topic in Havard’s University newspaper…

“Human degradation of the environment has the potential to stall an ongoing process of planetary evolution, and even rewind the evolutionary clock to leave the planet habitable only by the bacteria that dominated billions of years of Earth’s history, Harvard geochemist Charles Langmuir said.”

Evolution has always been viewed as mostly a positive progression driven process which is known as; survival of the fittest. But one asks; Then why is humanity, the much higher life form over all other earthly life forms on course towards extinction but bacteria is not, according to some scientists?

“The implication is that animal and plant life is more vulnerable than microbial life to environmental variations, and that it therefore carries a higher risk of annihilation (i.e., is “less fit” to survive the changes).

“But if microbes are so good at surviving, and if increased survivability is what drives evolution, then why did life evolve upwards from microbes? If the main driving force behind Darwinian evolution—fitness—is removed from the equation, then what remains to drive it?” –ICR

I believe the main implication of suggesting an elimination of mankind is trying to scare people into believing a certain bias (in this case man-made global warming), which some scientists are receiving a lot of government funding. In the process have undermined their hypothesis of evolution.

One evolutionist proponent cheerfully (well maybe more of an angry or prideful tone) describes how microbial life can survive in extreme temperatures. While this is true,  it’s also a well know fact that bacteria are the undisputed champs overall when it comes to survival.

Bacteria has high level of complexity such as specialized components and mechanisms. Bacteria is also very efficient with it’s complexity. All these things give the one-cell animal an advantage over other animals with millions or billions of cells. Yet, humans who don’t have the adaptability to survive in extreme environments as bacteria has, yet mankind are considered the most highly evolved species of them all!

It would seem from what we currently know about bacteria, they are better suited for survival than humans are and a lot other species as well. So the question remains, if evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, why evolve upwards to create a life form not a suitable for surviving as the highly specified complex forms of one-cell animals are?

I believe as science progresses, and studying a wide range of animals like bacteria and obtaining more knowledge of it’s specified complexity. This in turn without question, destroys the notion of survival of the fittest. It’s observations confirm the most important aspect of them all, and that is…God!

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “Alvin Powell On Humanity and Evolution

  1. A lot of your entry seems to stem from two main problems;
    a) A misinterpretation of the article quoted in the first half.
    b) A misunderstanding of the Theory of Evolution.

    Evolution has always been viewed as a positive progression driven which is known as; survival of the fittest. Right?

    That is a rather simplistic way of putting it, though a popular one. It has much more to do with gaining and utilising resources. ‘Positive progression’ makes it sound like you think Evolution has some ‘perfect lifeform’ as a final goal or somesuch … no.

    Then why is humanity which is assumed to evolve into a much higher life form on the brink of extinction according to some scientists?

    Who assumes humanity is a much greater lifeform? All that sets us apart from most of the rest is opposable thumbs and brain structure. And you seem to be assuming that humanity, as a whole, can’t make rather huge mistakes.

    I believe the main implication of suggesting an elimination of mankind is trying to scare people into believing a certain bias (in this case man-made global warming),

    Ah, let me guess … you don’t believe in global warming as well as Evolution? That would explain a lot.

    which some scientists are receiving a lot of government funding. In the process have undermined their hypothesis of evolution.

    So now you’re accusing mainstream science selling out for funding? Right. Sure.
    The Theory of Evolution is not a hypothesis – it is classified as a Theory.

    Bacteria has high level of complexity such as specialized components and mechanisms. Bacteria is also very efficient with it’s complexity. All these things give the one-cell animal an advantage over other animals with millions or billions of cells. Yet, humans who don’t have the adaptability as bacteria has, are considered the most highly evolved species of them all!

    Humans are well suited to their environment, which we’ve actually been able to tame and change to suit us (unlike other life which is stuck in the reverse situation). A clear example of this is the shrinking of the human lower jaw as our diets have gotten softer.
    Bacteria are well suited to their environment, depending on the type of bacteria obviously, which is a LOT more volatile then Humans.
    But then that last paragraph seems to be following a path of logic which places human kind as the most perfect biological organism on the planet – which is not something the Theory of Evolution states or even vaguely hints at.

    It would seem from what we currently know about bacteria, they are better suited for survival than humans are and a lot other species as well.

    So? The human body is generally not very good in comparison to a lot of other life. Senses that are muted/dull compared to pretty much every other mammal, inferior physical attributes to primates and so on.

    So the question remains, if evolution is driven by survival of the fittest, why evolve upwards to create a life form not a suitable for surviving as the highly specified complex forms of one-cell animals are?

    Think of it like a computer operating system, if you will. On one hand we have Windows 3.1; a basic but really rather stable GUI/OS that did the job and crashed very rarely indeed.
    Then you have a much more complex OS such as Vista. It is a lot more complicated, is capable of a lot more and is bigger. But it’s nowhere near as stable and uses a lot more resources.

    I suggest you go and do some actual study of the Theory of Evolution.

  2. A computer needs built first by someone with raw material, then it needs controlled energy created by someone. Next, it needs software and software that is understandable to that particular platform which has been created by intelligent designer (someone). You can write a computer program as complex as you want, but if the platform is unable to understand it (process it), it’s of no use. Without controlled energy, and someone to turn it on, the computer wouldn’t work in the first place, thus no way of inserting in a program.

    Updates in software need information from users in order to fix the bugs. That requires intelligence. Some software will crash (sometimes the whole computer) rendering it useless if the bugs are not fixed. It’s even worse if the information is random, meaning if one inserts information that doesn’t have to do with the program, that software will cease to function. Information has to be precise and specified in order for it to work even in the simple operating systems. Evolution an unthinking process can’t any of that! By the way, my training on computers started with Apple IIe.

    So your trying to debate me that mankind is not the highest life form on earth? You mean to tell me we are not much different than plants, or bacteria?

    I believe in global warming as well as global cooling. Meaning when the Vikings landed on Greenland to settle, it was going through a warming period. That is where Greenland got it’s name. For 300 years the Vikings raised cattle there an everything, then it began to cool, and is now a lot colder there than it was when the Vikings lived on it. Warming and cooling are historical facts, none of which can be controlled by man.

    But I don’t believe in the man-made global warming scare. No evidence for man altering the weather. Just like I didn’t believe in global cooling scare of the 1970s. Although, I believe we should help keep the air clean for health reasons and remove dependence off of foreign oil.

    By the way, my house gets 25 percent of it’s energy from solar, wind, and other alternative energy. Does yours? When my budget permits I will increase to 50 percent then 100 percent. It’s one of my goals and remember I reject man-made global warming!

  3. *sigh*
    You seem to have missed the actual point I was making and gone off an another tangent, vainly trying to tie it to some sort of intelligent design or something. The point simply was: Things can be incredibly complex but that does not necessarily make them better.

    So your trying to debate me that mankind is not the highest life form on earth? You mean to tell me we are not much different than plants, or bacteria?

    That would depend on your use of the word ‘highest’. Are we the most intelligent? Definitely. Apart from that intelligence, are we anything special? No, we’re not. In most ways, we’re actually biologically inferior to a lot of species.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s