[Azek]

Are you suggesting we should measure how 'evolved' a species is by the mutation rate in their lineage, or by 'successful' adaption through mutation?

I'm not sure but I think the above poster was making the point that saying 'more' or 'less' evolved implies the possibility of a generalised qualitative measuring of mutations.

[pegasus]

He didn't even mention mutations or measurements, so you might be reading a bit too much into it there. But yeah, I guess one (or a whole army of scientists) could think up a measurement scheme like that, starting from the last common ancestor. Meanwhile, I propose we continue using words like "evolved" in an informal way since they might turn out to have more meat to them than initially apparent.

[scott_w]

No he’s pretty much right. I wasn’t talking about mutations specifically but there’s no objective “more” or “less” when it comes to evolution. Just “different.”

[pegasus]

Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence. Just because nobody has come up with a formula for something doesn't make it unreal. Phenomena exist outside of our small rationally circumscribed model of the world. Homo sapiens has adapted to a incredible variety of environments, we've pushed ourselves way outside our comfort zone and accumulated and enormous amount of changes in a short period of time. It makes sense that we've accumulated more "genetic experience" this way, that we've grown further than other species. This is how most people use the word "evolved", seems fair enough to me.

[scott_w]

> Why not though? To me it sounds dogmatic to make such pronouncements without any evidence.

The onus is in you to prove one path is objectively “more evolved” than another. All other animals have undergone the same amount of time evolving as humans.

What evidence do you present that we accumulated more genetic changes than any other organisms? Did you catalogue and count the changes?

[pegasus]

Nope, the onus is on you to provide evidence if you're going to go against common sense. And all you have is that flimsy "it's the same time stretch" argument. Do you also protest when people call someone immature for their age: "that's impossible, age is the only objectively measurable factor in this equation"? That's not a very convincing argument, even if some people are convinced. Maybe they just feel threatened by the idea.

[scott_w]

I didn’t talk about time, I pointed out your measure isn’t evidence because you never actually measured it. Unless you can back up your statement, you’re the one falling back to a subjective measure (public opinion, that you also never proved) to make an objective statement of “fact.”

All you have is a completely unrelated analogy that misrepresents what I said. What does maturity and age have to do with this discussion?