Are some organisms more "advanced" than others?
133231
You are asking two very different questions here, and I will address each seperately.\n\n"Are, Say, Giraffes More Evolved Than, Say, Squid or Amoebas?"\n\nNo. All life currently on Earth has had ancestors evolving for the same length of time, as all life shares a common ancestor. You might argue that the more generations something has been evolving, the more 'evolved' it is, in which case, bacteria like E. Coli are the most evolved. I consider generation length to be a function of evolutionary adaptation, so I would say that between two organisms which are alive at the same time, neither is more evolved than the other.\n\nAs for your second question,\n"Are some organisms more "advanced" than others?"\n\nSure. It all depends on what you mean by "advanced". Eukaryotes are certainly more complex than prokaryotes, for example, so if you defined "advancement" as "number of cells", then blue whales are probably the most advanced organisms. If you define "advancement" by the number of cell types, well, I have no idea what's the most advanced, but it might be "mammals" or something; regardless, it's probably a pretty big group.
614485
In the example of the flagellum, scientists say that they have no clue how it could put itself together like that, but they will find a way. And same for cilium. And then the giraffe too to and extent. And the human blood clotting system. Or the dolphin.\n\nIf you know the right stuff, you know that it’s impossible. Darwin foresaw this. "If it could be demonstrated that any organ is so complex that it cannot have evolved, my theory would absolutely fall apart." This happened with those organs and animals I listed above.\n\nSo scientists say there will be discoveries in the future. Like Lucy then ape man? Turned out to be the fossil of a human. They say they will find a way.\n\nThere was recently a dinosaur discovered that still had 90% of soft tissue still on it. this couldn't have happened if dinosaurs died out more than 10,000 years ago. Scientists are not - get this- looking for another way for animals to decay and fossilize. That is not science. That's indoctrination.\n\nBut when they look at the things and find more, they will find more complexity, not less. When you look at a small section of a car motor, it looks complex. If you look at a little more, you see more complexity, not less.\n\nthings are too complex to have evolved, but they will still insist that they did. I’m sorry, but doggedly devoting yourself to a theory is not science. you cannot insist that alternatives not be taught in classrooms.\n\nEvolution is not plausible.
35566
That depends upon the definition of 'intelligence' and there is not just one. People tend to identify human-like behaviors with intelligence, but what is it? Learning ability? Tool use? Self-consciousness?\nI don't know.\n\nSo that's my non-view on the subject, as a biologist.
127315
The very oldest species on Earth are the cyanobacteria, which seem to have \nbeen around virtually unchanged for nearly 4 billion years. This is based \non fossils of that age that have been compared under high-powered \nmicroscopes to existing species of these bacteria. Other bacteria that \nare about as old are the archaea, which thrive in acidic, high- \ntemperature, or high-radiation environments. \n\nAnother ancient organisms are the stromatolites, mounds of algae and \nbacteria that today grow in the Bahamas, Shark's Bay Australia, and a few \nother limited environments. They have been around, also largely \nunchanged, for over 3 billion years and at one time were the Earth's \ndominant form of life. \n\nOn the animal side of things, the brachiopod Lingula is probably the \noldest, having existed nearly unchanged for over 500 million years, and \nthe horseshoe crab (limulus) has been on the planet for several hundred \nmillion years, too. Since the average "lifespan" of a species is only a \nfew million years, having such ancient species around is very impressive. \n\nA good book about the earliest life is "Cradle of Life" by J. William \nSchopf. He is one of the premier scientists doing this sort of research. \nAt a more advanced level, he has edited two scientific books, "Earth's \nEarliest Biosphere" and "The Proterozoic Biosphere", which should be in If you are a "separator" (I’m not sure if that is the correct word), instead of a “grouper” there are a LOT of things you could see as very young species. For instance, marine iguanas (are they called green iguanas?) are very different depending on what island they live on. Some people see those as separate species so there are some that are still in the process of adapting to changes that are seen to be becoming a new species. Also, a lot of migrating birds can reproduce with different species to form new species that are not barren like mules or anything like that, they can become their own species I guess. But I think a grouper would say they are all the same species if they can interbreed and have offspring that can reproduce. Like, all green iguanas are one species.
357628
I could never do this topic justice in the space provided, but here it goes. :)\n\nHomonids have been getting 'smarter' for almost 15 million years now, and this trend certainly hasn't been limited to a single species.  For example, there were several homonid species in the genus Australopithecus whose evoltionary progress rivaled that of our earliest ancestors in the genus Homo (i.e. H. habilis).  The most notable species among the australopithecines were A. garhi and A. africanus.  Like early species in the genus Homo, both of these australopithecine species were bipedal and had relatively large brain sizes (i.e. when compared to earlier australopithecines). For these reasons (and several others), it was originally thought that at least one of these species might have given rise to the genus Homo.  However, genetics and fossil evidence have suggested that H. habilis did not arise from these australopithecines.  And recent findings in the fossil record suggest that these early humans and late australopithecines may have actually co-existed!  Cool, huh?  Even more surprising, is that aout the same time these species began to co-exist, the australopithecines became extinct.  This has led scietists to speculate that early humans might have driven the australopithecines into extinction by 'out-competing' them or perhaps even by killing them off.\n\n'Traits that make us more capable as a species' may be much more important than you think.  Specific traits like the opposable thumb and bipedal ambulation (which frees up the hands and allows them to be used for other tasks than just walking) are crucial to the development of intelligence.  Anlytical skills, such as tool-making, have driven the development of human inginuity and intelligence, and they wouldn't be possible without these key physical traits.  Even today, we can see that other species who share these physical traits are starting to show early signs of intelligence.  For example, both chimpanzees and gorillas have basic tool making skills.  Give them another million years or so, and they might be just as smart as we are today.. assuming that we don't kill them off as well. ;-)
406824
Remember that evolution usually takes the path of least resistance.  C4 metabolisms are an advance over C3 by compartmentalization.  This means creating specialized tissues.  Specialized tissues are metabolically expensive to form and maintain.  If a plant can get by with a C3 metabolism for all of its shortcomings and in-efficiencies it will do so.  Also C4 metabolism is adapted for periodic high intensity heat.  A great majority of the world does not experience that type of environment so that type of adaptation is not necessary.  When you look at it that way you could also ask why more plants don't have a CAM metabolism.
88699
does it matter if we are superior or not. the thing with animals is, when mankind wipes him self out or herself out then the good old animals will find a way to claw there way to the top again, until the next species comes along and thinks there the top dog or the biggest cock in hen house
597457
If we assume evolution as by Darwin is basically right. Animals evolve to best survive in a certain ecological niche. In that respect intelligence was an adaptation to survive and prosper in response to certain environmental factors, and our species was the winner in that race to develop. In the same light why don’t all animals develop flight or gills etc. Other animals haven’t developed the same type of intelligence because they don’t need it. The Lingula sp. (a seashell) has existed in its current shape for well over 500 million years, as compared to our ½ to ¾ million years, it perfectly fills a certain niche and has no need to evolve further.\nHowever your question hits upon a salient point. Where is the actual evidence for this species development? We should have examples of inter-species e.g. super smart bunnies still able to breed with normal bunnies to create cleverer off spring. This missing link worried Darwin for his entire life and eventually caused him to doubt his own theory.
438425
Yes, all organisms(living things) have DNA.
62587
Smarter than what? For what reason? \nBoth species are obviously bright enough to have survived being considered delicious morsels of food by a good many predators in the wild. They have survived aeons unencumbered by the need to spell or get answers to polls, so how much smarter can an animal get?
462687
.  Animals which have a simple evolutionary history are usually soft bodied, and soft bodies animal do not leave good fossils.  It is easy to find analogs for evolutionary steps toward certain animals, the whale for example,  but finding an clear-cut sequence of fossils is difficult.\n.  But, looking at analogs, consider the weasel, the otter, the seal, the manatee and the whale.  The difference between any two steps in this sequence is fairly small, but the difference from one end to the other seems quite large.\n.  There are enough fossils whose ages may be determined that, studied as a group, studied as a group, they demonstrate an increase in complexity of organisms over time and indicate familial relationships.  Bony headed fishes, known only from fossils, were the ancestors of fish like the coelacanth.  Fishes like the collegian were ancestral to both modern fishes and the fish which pulled themselves up from the water on strong, bony fins.\n.  The horse has some obvious ancestors, but the the fossil record of those ancestor becomes weaker as you go back in time.  The fossil record  between shrew like mammals and those creatures which had some horse like characteristics has big gaps in it..
630386
Species do not evolve, individuals show variation and sometimes that variation is pro reproductive, (not necessarily pro long and happy life)  In that case a pool of individuals with that trait grows and reinforces it.  Such variation tends to be absorbed in a large mobile population and cause no long term divergence, so our own mobility and global success works against a new variety of human emerging.  \n\nOne can anticipate however that our science will progress far faster then any normal evolution and in a short time a group of therapies will be available that will offer longer life, greater vitality and sexual enjoyment, improved health in general and whatever appearance is desired.  The trend to these things already exists.  The factor that will isolate this group of advantaged humans may already exist as well, since it is likely that such biological tinkering will be available only to those who can afford it.  We may see the very rich diverging as a virtual new type of human in the next fifty years, followed by the middle class in places like America.  The difference in lifespan between a wealthy nation and a third world one is now twenty five years or more, it may stretch to a century.  A pretty big issue putting wealth and experience against endless numbers...
280303
well...\nu could talk about how little we know about whether organisms like bacteria and viruses have consicousness and a probable effect that might happen if we change their genomes . we dont really know whether those kind of organisms have an "individuality" or anything, so thats where i would start off from.\nhope this helped
627304
Living things are always adapting.\n\nWe are already able to live in an atmosphere that is 21% elemental oxygen (a poison!) that has been excreted by anarobic bacteria for the last 3 billion years.  \n\nThe method we use to get it into our lungs, then our bloodstream and then to each cell is a marvel of chemical engineering.  Eventually, we and other breathing vertibrates will get used to other atmospheric chemicals, so, YES, it's true.
542891
If you eliminate the evidence, there is no evidence.  Highly advanced reasoning.  You just forgot to wipe every living creature off the face of the Earth.  The careful observations of the variation of forms, coupled with the pattern of variation in the genomes of like and unlike forms is a scientific method of demonstrating the relative relatedness of every living creature.
282647
The Great Apes, and, no - I've seen nothing that would tell me they have religion. I really don't see what your question has to do with evolution. Are you saying that people that don't believe in evolution also don't believe that there are some animals that are smarter than others?
276368
There may be another universe we dont know, there may be species of different cell structure, we cannot say we are the greater body of another universe, there may be another species with much more advance technology, so everything is ????????????.