Question for Evolutionists: Is the cockroach a highly evolved creature?

[Laika]

For the sake of argument, A cockroach is more "highly" evolved than an ameobia but arguably a human is more "highly" evolved than a cockroach. This is not a mainstream scientific view as it equates the "complexity" of an organism and its relationship to the environment as a measure of evolutionary "progress". Pretty sure this attitude fell out of favour in the early to mid twentieth century if it held sway amongst scientists at all.

The question of whether something is more highly evolved is imported from non-scientific ideas concerning ideologies of social status amongst humans and applying them to the natural world. It's a consequence of social Darwinism and not of the understanding of evolution in a narrowly and rigourously scientific method. Eugenics would equate wealth and social status as biological (e.g. A rich man is more highly evolved than a poor man, a race that successfully colonises large parts of the world is superior to the race it has conquered and colonised, etc.) such concepts have limited scientific value unless you can assert there is an objective measure to evaluate them which is why (I think) the idea is widely discredited as we can't claim that.

 

[Skwim]

There's no such thing as an "evolutionist", or a "highly evolved" creature.

"Question to gravitists: does a paperweight use a lot of gravity?"

I have a paperweight that uses 12 ounces of gravity. Hardly a lot, but much more than the paper it holds down uses. BTW. . .

evolutionist (ˌiːvəˈluːʃənɪst)
n
(Biology) a person who believes in a theory of evolution, esp Darwin's theory of the evolution of plant and animal species
Source:Thefreedictionary

__________________________________________

evolutionist
Pronunciation: /ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst
noun
A person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
Source:Oxford Dictionaries

___________________________________________

evolutionist
noun evo·lu·tion·ist \-sh(ə-)nəst\
: a student of or adherent to a theory of evolution
Source: Merriam-Webster

____________________________________________

evolutionist
noun us /ˌev·əˈlu·ʃə·nɪst, ˌi·və-/
science: someone who believes in or supports the theory of evolution
Source:Cambridge Dictionary


.​

 

[Sapiens]

It is still evolving, e.g.: cockroaches have recently evolved to avoid the glucose found in traps.

Highly evolved is oft confused by some with highly specialized, yet it is not uncommon that the generalist is the most fit.

 

[SomeRandom]

Cockroaches are pesky highly evolved critters. I have to switch my pesticide every 6 months because those little ******** adapt!
We used to use mentholated spirits back when I was a kid. Then after a while you'd spray one and it'd be like "lol is that it" and run on it's merry way!

 

[Jumi]

It would help if you defined what you mean by "highly evolved"? More complex, more adapted to it's environment, more specialized, more adaptable?

 

[LuisDantas]

Agree by the way, but not because it's an ideology, or whatever.

Nevertheless, ideology is the most generous description that may be assigned to Creatinism,

 

[LuisDantas]

It would help if you defined what you mean by "highly evolved"? More complex, more adapted to it's environment, more specialized, more adaptable?

I agree. The OP needs this parameter to be meaningful.

 

[Revoltingest]

If I understand you correctly, under your scenario an organism is considered to be highly evolved if it's well adapted to its environment, say environment A. If environment A should change to environment B, which is hostile to the organism, the organism loses it's "highly evolved" status. But if environment B should change back to environment A, the organism would regain its status as highly evolved. So the organism went from highly evolved to not as highly evolved to highly evolved, and all without changing one wit.

The way I see it, one can say any organism that has gone through a tremendous (high) amount evolution is highly evolved. It evolved an awful lot rather than a little.
Thing is, all organisms have gone through a tremendous amount of evolution, even simple life forms. It all depends on where one sets the starting line. That it's environment suddenly changes leaving the organism less than best adapted doesn't take away the fact that it is highly evolved: It went through a tremendous amount evolution.

Because of the above reasons the concept of "highly evolved" is next to meaningless, not entirely so, but next to.
.

That all sounds reasonable to me.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Question for evolutionists, and creationists can enter the discussion as well, since this DIR is about evolution & creationism.
Is the cockroach a 'highly evolved' creature? Is it 'more evolved', than say, humans? Why or why not?

This question makes no sense whatsoever.

• Based upon what criteria are we to answer "Is the cockroach 'highly evolved'?What is your criteria for "highly evolved"?
• If there is a "progression" of evolution, in your opinion, taking us from "less" or "lower" to "more" or "higher", then what is the base and apex of this progression?
• If that "progression" does, in your opinion, exists, then based upon what facts or criteria are you determining that such a "progression" does exist?
• From what standpoint are we to assume that some creatures are more "highly evolved" than others?
• Are all aspects of the comparisons given to be included; or only specific aspects, such as intelligence?
• Is an intelligent creature more "highly evolved" than a less intelligent creature based solely on the level of that intelligence?

 

[Skwim]

Been thinking a bit about the notion of highly evolved.

I think it could be said that an organism is more highly evolved than an other IF it is less adversely impacted by the pressures of its environment. Does it struggle less to survive, and are the causes of its mortality less varied than those of the other organism? My thinking here: Because there are fewer types of causes it would indicate the organism has evolved to a point where a lot of potential causes have been met and nullified.

OR,

maybe it could be said that an organism is more highly evolved than an other IF it has survived more environmental changes and remained the same. The cockroach comes to mind.

What do you think?


.

 

[fantome profane]

Been thinking a bit about the notion of highly evolved.

I think it could be said that an organism is more highly evolved than an other IF it is less adversely impacted by the pressures of its environment. Does it struggle less to survive, and are the causes of its mortality less varied than those of the other organism? My thinking here: Because there are fewer types of causes it would indicate the organism has evolved to a point where a lot of potential causes have been met and nullified.

OR,

maybe it could be said that an organism is more highly evolved than an other IF it has survived more environmental changes and remained the same. The cockroach comes to mind.

What do you think?


.

You can do this, you can decide on a definition of "highly evolved" and then categorise organisms or species accordingly. But these are choices you are making. And they are reasonable. But you still need to understand that nature does not make these choices. Nature does not care how easy or hard it is for an organism to survive, only if it survives or not. Nature does not care how many genetic changes the organism has undergone, only if it survives or not.

 

[Ouroboros]

Tardigrads are the "highest" evolved animal. It can be without water for 10 years. Can survive in space. One of the only species that have gone through several mass extinction events in Earth's history. They're the ones with the best track record.

Cute little thingy, isn't it.

 

[fantome profane]

Tardigrads are the "highest" evolved animal. It can be without water for 10 years. Can survive in space. One of the only species that have gone through several mass extinction events in Earth's history. They're the ones with the best track record.

Cute little thingy, isn't it.

The water bear is absolutely adorable.

 

[Ouroboros]

The water bear is absolutely adorable.

Totally.

 

[Parsimony]

Define "highly evolved".

 

[Revoltingest]

Define "highly evolved".

It looks like we each get to define it as we please, Shifu.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Agree by the way, but not because it's an ideology, or whatever.

It is a belief though, a belief with no scientific evidence, unlike evolution, which has a mountain-sized pile of evidence to support it.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is a belief though, a belief with no scientific evidence, unlike evolution, which has a mountain-sized pile of evidence to support it.

Actually, I've seen'm present some scientific evidence.
But it's the reasoning from it, & testability which fail.

 

[Skwim]

You can do this, you can decide on a definition of "highly evolved" and then categorise organisms or species accordingly. But these are choices you are making. And they are reasonable. But you still need to understand that nature does not make these choices.

No I don't "still need" to understand this. It's been my understanding since I was in high school. Quite some time ago. I understand the processes of evolution quite well.

Nature does not care how easy or hard it is for an organism to survive, only if it survives or not. Nature does not care how many genetic changes the organism has undergone, only if it survives or not.

Nature cares if organisms survive or not?? ?? Boy this is a new one on me. Care to explain?


.

 

[fantome profane]

No I don't "still need" to understand this. It's been my understanding since I was in high school. Quite some time ago. I understand the processes of evolution quite well.

Nature cares if organisms survive or not?? ?? Boy this is a new one on me. Care to explain?


.

forgive my rhetoric