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

[Desert Snake]

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?

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, in that it has been succesful for so many generations.

Evolution - in biology at least - isn't about attaining "better" forms, but rather better adapted ones. Comparing two lifeforms to decide which is better evolved tells us how well adapted to their environments and ecological niches they are. It is no value judgement about their realizations or potential.

 

[Revoltingest]

It is highly evolved in that it is very successful as it is.
More so than humans?
That's above my pay grade.
We're pretty successful too.

 

[Ouroboros]

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?

No.

Humans are fit for their environment.
Cockroaches are fit for theirs.
Fish is most evolved for the environment they live in
And birds are highest evolved or fittest for flight.
All animals are the "highest" or most evolved in their situation, at this moment, but things constantly change, and whatever species that is not fit will die out in whatever environment they're in.

Put it this way, cockroaches are not evolved to type posts on forums from their phones, but we are.

 

[Skwim]

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?

Is there any creature that isn't highly evolved?


.

 

[psychoslice]

As a cockroach yes it is highly evolved, just like any other creature.

 

[Revoltingest]

Is there any creature that isn't highly evolved?
.

I don't have an example (not my field), but if an environment for a species
changes rapidly, it will take time for it to reach genetic equilibrium as it adapts.
Until then, one could say it's not as highly evolved as it could be.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

since this DIR is about evolution & creationism.

Just so you know, this isn't a DIR. DIR means Discuss Individual Religions, and those who do not adhere to that religion may not post in that DIR except for asking respectful questions.
Now, to your question, first, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist." Evolution isn't a belief or an ideology. It is an established scientific fact. We don't call people "gravitationists" or "germists" or "plate tectonicists." Saying "evolutionist" only serves to attempt to make evolution appear to be a belief, and it's not.
Second, there is no real "highly evolved" category. There is more complexity in a vertebrate than an a bacterium, but neither is really more "highly evolved" than the other. Evolution unfolded as it did, with the gears of Natural Selection producing the biodiversity we see today. Each species has evolved to fit in their environment. An eagle has sharp vision and razor sharp claws, and the are at the top of the food chain for their environment, but they could survive an ocean environment, where the great white shark has evolved into an alpha predator of the oceans. We humans have evolved to adapt to many different environments, albeit with the assistance of things such as cloths for warmth and tools for assisting us. Cockroaches too have evolved to suit their environment.

 

[Revoltingest]

I recall an example.
When lake Tanganyika formed, cychlids who were adepted for river life had to re-adapt to the lake.
This took awhile before the species stabilized, forming new ones.
Are they done?
I don't know.
But for many years, they were not done evolving.
If another change is introduced, eg, a new predator, then they'll suddenly be not "highly evolved" for this new environment.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

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

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

 

[Desert Snake]

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

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

'Evolution vs. Creationism'
Is there no such thing as a Creationist, either? Perhaps you have another word you' d like to be referred to, contextually?

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

'Evolution vs. Creationism'
Is there no such thing as a Creationist, either? Perhaps you have another word you' d like to be referred to, contextually?

ehh, I got here from the sidebar. In any case, "supporters of evolution" would work? Positions in theology are typically "isms"; theories in the physical scientists typically are not. Creationism is an ideology, but there is no ideology of "evolutionism". It's just subscribing to the scientific consensus.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

ehh, I got here from the sidebar. In any case, "supporters of evolution" would work? Positions in theology are typically "isms"; theories in the physical scientists typically are not. Creationism is an ideology, but there is no ideology of "evolutionism". It's just subscribing to the scientific consensus.

Yes. And I think it is very important that we not use this "evolutionist" term, and educate those that do, because it is trying to put evolution on par with a belief system or an ideology, when in reality it is a scientific fact, and no is or uses the term "magneticist."

 

[fantome profane]

The problem is that the question itself doesn't make sense. Every living organism on this planet is the product of evolution. The cockroach is the product of approximately 3.5 billion years of evolution. Human beings are the product of 3.5 billion years of evolution. That cute little bunny is the product of 3.5 years of evolution. The crocodile is the product 3.5 billion years of evolution. Nothing is more evolved than anything else. The phrase "highly evolved" just doesn't mean anything.

The question implies a value judgement, and nature does not give us value judgements.

 

[LuisDantas]

'Evolution vs. Creationism'
Is there no such thing as a Creationist, either? Perhaps you have another word you' d like to be referred to, contextually?

Creationists certainly exist. Creationism is a doctrine, after all.

 

[Desert Snake]

Creationists certainly exist. Creationism is a doctrine, after all.

Explain?

 

[Desert Snake]

Creationists certainly exist.

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

 

[Desert Snake]

ehh, I got here from the sidebar. In any case, "supporters of evolution" would work? Positions in theology are typically "isms"; theories in the physical scientists typically are not. Creationism is an ideology, but there is no ideology of "evolutionism". It's just subscribing to the scientific consensus.

Geologist, physicist, biologist, gemologist, Palmist, artist, bicyclist, guitarist, Seventh day Adventist, scientist,

 

[fantome profane]

Geologist, physicist, biologist, gemologist, Palmist, artist, bicyclist, guitarist, Seventh day Adventist, scientist,

But that makes the point. I believe in physics. But that does not make me a physicist.

 

[Skwim]

I don't have an example (not my field), but if an environment for a species
changes rapidly, it will take time for it to reach genetic equilibrium as it adapts.
Until then, one could say it's not as highly evolved as it could be.

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.

.