Evolution

R2D2-PENA:
Now the question about the missing link. First off, evolutionists use fossil records as fact and proof of their theory, now if the "missing link" is a misconception or error on our side, then let me post this question another way, where is the transitory evidence that supports the change from an "animal" or "beast" to a "human"?. All is see is speculatory [sic] explanations.

What do you mean by "use fossil records as fact"? If we observe a fossil, it is safe to say that it exists (although we cannot be absolutely sure that our senses have not been fooled in some way, of course).

As for a "change" from an "animal" or "beast" to a "human", here is an important point that was missed in your biology class: humans are animals ("beast" is not used by biologists). A simple biological definition of an animal is a multicellular (many-celled), heterotrophic (getting food from others) eukaryote (organism with nucleated cells), without cell walls (special layer outside of plasma membrane), and usually with nerves, muscles, and sexual reproduction with the diploid stage dominant. Humans certainly qualify.

As for evidence that humans evolved from non-human ancestors, there is a rich fossil record. We do not pretend that we have all the fossils yet, but there are some pretty clear conclusions from what we do have.

Are there fossils that are transitional between modern humans and earlier apes? Yes, without question. No Homo sapiens fossils are found earlier than about 300,000 years ago. None at all. Instead, we find H. erectus between about 300,000 and 1.6 million years ago. H. erectus was very similar to H. sapiens, but has a more prominent jaw and brow, and a smaller braincase (about 2/3 that of modern man). Of course, there is a transition: older H. sapiens fossils are very similar to [H. erectus[/i] and younger H. erectus are similar to H. sapiens. H. erectus used tools. Note that no H. erectus is found after about 300,000 years ago, nor before about 1.6 million years ago.

Then there was H. habilis, from about 1.6 million to about 2.4 million years ago. This species had a slightly more pronounced jaw, a stronger brow ridge, a smaller braincase (about half of modern), and rather "ape-like" proportions (long arms and short legs), but was bipedal and the skeleton would look human to any non-specialist. H. habilis used tools. Also, younger H. habilis are similar to older H. erectus, while older H. erectus are similar to younger H. habilis. Note that H. habilis is not found after about 1.6 million years ago, nor before about 2.4 million years ago.

There is some controversy as to the exact lineage before this, because fossils are scarce. What is known is that there are no fossils of H. sapiens, H. erectus, or H. habilis earlier than about 2.4 million years ago, but there are fossils of more transitional forms. The best known is the species to which "Lucy" belongs: Australopithecus afarensis. Fossils of this species are found between about 2.6 and 3.9 million years ago. They are clearly bipedal, but also have the curved finger bones typical of tree-dwelling species. They have prominent jaws, heavy brow ridges, and relatively large canine teeth. Their braincase is just over one quarter that of modern humans, though still large by non-human standards. A. afarensis apparently did not use tools.

Also if fossil records are not the evidence or proof of the evolution theory then explain the change and where does that change take place? What is the proof that that happened, if fossils are not the proof?

Do not confuse the specific evolutionary lineage of humans with "evolutionary theory", nor should you think that the fossils are "the" evidence for this lineage. As compelling as the fossil evidence is, there is DNA, embryological, and other evidence as well, and it all agrees: life on earth shares a common ancestor.[bl

 

Neither do I. Is there anyone who does? According to evolutionary biology, humans and amoebas share a common ancestor. This common ancestor was much more similar to an amoeba than to a human, but that is not the same as humans evolving from amoebas. This is an important point.

R2D2-PENA:
I agree with you on this one, because i as a creationist have a biblical explanation for this.

You agree that the common ancestor of amoebas and humans was more similar to an amoeba, or only that they share a common ancestor?

The Bible teaches that man was created from the dust of the earth, that is where the relation of man to the rest of creation is evidenced, if we come from the dust of the earth then obviously we have similar if not identical ingredients which make up our structure.

You will have to explain how this is relevant. The elements that are found in dust are also found in humans, of course (this is consistent with evolution, and of course it is consistent with creation because everything is), but these elements are found in very different proportions. What has this got to do with the relationship between humans and amoebas?

Now i am just posting this as a creationist point of view, to state that there are biblical explanations which do support many scientific evidences.

You mean, like the rabbits chewing the cud (they don't), or bats being birds (they aren't). Using the bible for a science text insults both Christianity and science.

Take it as you will, but note that this was written thousands of years ago when the technological knowledge needed to verify this didn't exist.

When people might have believed that rabbits chew the cud, or that bats are birds.

So please don't take it as me trying to convince you of my belief but see it as proof or evidence or maybe a point in favor of creationism and God, that some of us are on the right track and that in my eyes it is not a coincidence but a planned route which God devised.

Are you suggesting that the "man came from dust" thing is somehow scientific knowledge unavailable to man 2,000 years ago, and that this is somehow evidence for creationism? If these are the straws that you are grasping for, then your position is very weak indeed.

Peez

 

R2D2-PENA:
Thanks Snowdog, you have answered my question. Because one of the gripes i have about evolutionists is that many have claimed that the big bang theory is linked to the evolution theory, which you have showed that it's not entirely true.

Could you give us an example? All it takes is a quick look in a biology text book, and perhaps a gander at a physics text book, to see that, apart from being science, they have nothing to do with each other. I have only ever seen creationists mixing the two.

Now my points on evolution have been stated, in saying that i do believe that evolution exists in many ways and forms, but that i do not believe that that is how it all started. Maybe it's a misunderstanding on both our parts, in saying that we are on two sides of the fence. Maybe we can look at it like this:

God created the universe, he planted all humans and creatures and plants, etc. but established certain scientific principles to govern the rest of creation (in this specific case, evolution). Not that i am agreeing with it all, but i do see the fact that all of this evolution or growth would be part of the greater scheme of things, for what reason? i don't know. But i don't dismiss the evidence that you post here, if there is evidence and information proving your post, i will believe it and agree.

But the only thing i do disagree is the fact that it all started through an evolutionary process.

What do you mean by "the only thing i do disagree is the fact that it all started through an evolutionary process"? The evolutionary process is not a start of something, it is what happens after something is started. Do you mean that you do not believe that animals evolved from unicellular life forms? Do you mean that you do not believe that Chordates evolved from earlier organisms? Do you mean that you do not believe that mammals evolved from non-mammal ancestors? Do you mean that you do not believe that members of the order Carnivora evolved from dissimilar ancestors? Do you mean that you do not believe that canids evolved from non-canid carnivores? Do you mean that you do not believe that wolves evolved from a different canid ancestor? Do you mean that you do not believe that dogs evolved from wolves? o you mean that you do not believe that the Great Dane and Chihuahua share a common ancestor?

Peez

 

Peez: To add to your response to Melyanna...

Naturally creationists can argue that God just made them all the same. This is the problem with creationism: any and all observations can be put down to some god doing that way for his/her/their own reasons. It is not testable. Evolution, on the other hand, is not consistent with all observations. Again and again when we test evolution, we find that the observations are consistent with common descent. Either common descent occurred, or god(s) created things to look just as if they did.

Even if god made everything to appear, rather coincidentally, as though common descent occurred... for all intents and purposes, as far as our perspective and definitions are concerned, that would still mean common descent happened.

Evolutionary science has not gone backwards, but forwards, gaining more ground every step of the way, with new discoveries, new technologies... refining even further our understanding of how precisely the mechanism of evolution works... there will come a day not too far from now when we will be able to regress the human genome through Mitochondrial DNA and HOX gene analysis (and yet unforeseen advanced methods to come) back to the genetic constituents of every ancestor of our lineage right down to single-celled life.

 

R2D2-PENA:
I don't understand this, evolution denies the origin of it all but it does not post a theory of the origin, all this goes back to my earlier posts, is it or is not (evolution) making claims of the origins? If it's not discussing this point then lets leave the origin out and move on to the next point.

Let us be very clear on this point:

EVOLUTION IS ABOUT CHANGES IN POPULATIONS OF LIVING ORGANISMS OVER TIME

IT IS NOT ABOUT THE ORIGIN OF THE UNIVERSE OR EVEN THE ORIGIN OF LIFE

You can check any good biology text book, or a good physics text book. There are also many internet resources, but beware of creationists websites as they rarely have any idea of what evolution is. It is also worth mentioning that religion in general (and Christianity in particular) are not necessarily contradicted by evolution, it depends on how one interprets their religion. For example, I knew a priest who taught evolution, there was no problem for him.

Peez

 

This is how evolution works.
http://www.oz.net/~travis/sms/evolutn.htm
This shows the evolution of man.
http://www.oz.net/~travis/sms/descent.htm
Enjoy!

 

It might be interesting to note that in Hinduism, one day in the life of god (Brahma), which is called a yuga cycle is approximately 4,320,000 years.

This cycle was derived in Hindu scripture thousands of years before Christianity, and the other religions/denominations of the Judeo-Christian-Islamic pantheon. Such eastern religions as Hinduism have no objection whatsoever to the concept of evolution.

In fact, the animistic aspect of eastern religions has consistently favored the obvious interconnectivity of life and nature and the universe over the rather infantile notion that man is somehow distinct from and superior to other organisms... what PENA likes to call "beasts"... which is a concept that requires constant backpedaling and self-referential rationalization to be believable.

 

R2D2-PENA:
I'm sorry but i do not know who this person is, Duane Gish, i am from Mexico, so i don't know.

He is a prominent creationist, and an embarrassment to many Christians.

Also the questions i am asking were not implanted in my head, those are just logical questions on my part which to me still don't make sense, because in nature we see transitory evidence of everything, just look at how water turns to ice, it is a slow process in which you can see every point of transition from one state to another, likewise when it turns to gas, you can see every step of the way, but not in evolutinary [sic] origins.

Naturally one can see certain processes that occur quickly in human terms (though I doubt that you can see transition forms between a liquid and a gas). As for evolution, I have personally observed it as it happened over several months in a particular population.

I see jumps, big jumps.

With all due respect, where have you looked? Let's start with fossils: these are formed only occasionally (if an animal dies in the woods, it will almost never be fossilized). Even if a fossil is formed, we have to find it. It is for these reasons that we do not have lots of fossils in every evolutionary lineage, but we do have enough to test some hypotheses. For example, under Christian creationism we should not expect to find fossils of lots of animals that no longer exist, but we do. Under evolution we expect to find these fossils. Under creationism we expect to find human fossils right back to the beginning of the fossil record, but we don't. Under evolution this is what we expect. Under creationism we do not expect to find fossils or species that are transitional between humans and non-humans, but we do. Of course under evolution this is exactly what we expect. I am just scratching the surface here, there are (at least) thousands of examples. Even though the fossil record is very convincing, it is not the only evidence. DNA, embryology, biogeography, and comparative anatomy all provide evidence, and this evidence all agrees. You may not know it all or understand it all, but you should ask yourself why all the scientists who have studied this have accepted evolution.

Now you can state that there can be big changes from one generation to another, but all this is speculatory [sic], even though there are theories to support this, because the only thing we see in nature is that all of the beings that existed before still exist now.

No, this is exactly what we do not see. Well over 90% of the world's species are no longer here. There is no evidence of fossils from 300 million years ago of animals that are alive today.

If we evolved from one state to another, this means we left one state of ourselves behind, if we did, like monkeys, chimp, gorillas, fish, etc. where are those that are the links between these creatures. Did they disappear? where did they go?

I don't know what you mean by "leave behind" here. Did we "leave behind" our great-great-grandparents? Did they disappear? Where did they go? Where are the links between us and our third cousins?

If it all happened slowly over a course of millions of years, there has to be transitory evidence of all those states, just like water changes there are transitory pieces left, like water with a small speck of ice inside, the another piece which is more ice than water, and so on until we have a pure solid piece of ice, you see my point?

What makes you think that there is no such evidence?

in this process i can see every single piece of the transition but not in evolutionary origins, all is see is gaps, which to me just states that this theory of how it all started is in error.

Once again, evolution is not about how life started, it is about what happened (and happens) to living populations. Please explain why you would not expect to see any gaps if evolution were

 

PENA: If we evolved from one state to another, this means we left one state of ourselves behind, if we did, like monkeys, chimp, gorillas, fish, etc. where are those that are the links between these creatures. Did they disappear? where did they go?

Good lord... First of all, for the millionth time, evolution is NOT linear. Picture a tree... a tree has a trunk, then many branches, then many smaller branches off of some of the larger branches. You're thinking as if evolution were a stick... with a straight, unbranched path from one end of the stick to the other. This is not evolution.

Second, again, reread my posts on transitory species and the phylogenetic classification system. You're asking for transitional species when what you really should be doing is looking at DNA.

Where does the transition between you and your father manifest itself? Do you have a mid-brother that your father and mother birthed which in turn gave birth to you? No? Then are you physically identical to your father? No? Why not? It's called genetic mutation.

Just because we decided to slap classifications on organisms based on phenotypic or genotypic divergence doesn't magically set limits on how far genetic mutation can take life from point A to point B. It is this movement from point A to point B that we call evolution (EDIT: Just so this doesn't confuse you... think of point A as the trunk, and B as a collective of all the leaves on the tree... and not just one singular destination. In other words, one point A, many point Bs... i.e. You and a hundred friends can each leave Houston and go many different places, not just Minneapolis.)

If you understand DNA and how it produces you from your parents, then you shouldn't have to be a rocket scientist to comprehend how genetic divergence moved from single celled life and has produced so many varieties of combinations that over time have resulted in complex, multicellular life four billion years later.

But of course here you are picturing evolution as linear, and imagining that humans' arbitrary decision to classify organisms has resulted somehow in the spontaneous eruption of natural "limits" to genetic divergence... These imaginary limits to phylogenetic divergence aren't described anywhere in the Bible... of course neither is DNA, for that matter.

 

First of all, for the millionth time, evolution is NOT linear. Picture a tree... a tree has a trunk, then many branches, then many smaller branches off of some of the larger branches. You're thinking as if evolution were a stick... with a straight, unbranched path from one end of the stick to the other. This is not evolution.


To help "illustrate" Darth_SnowDog's point:
Darwin's Evolutionary Diagram

 

Why does everyone refer to the Genesis theory of life as something '2000 years old' when is more like 5,000 years old?

 

I can understand your DNA explanation,but how can we change, or evolve into a different species, unless we mate with a different species and combine our DNA. Because if remember my genetics correctly, i am a mixture or combination of me predecessor's DNA, which in turn deliver a new DNA, but the basic structure of this DNA remains the same. The only other way i know of modifying DNA in nature would be through mutation, i.e. a deformation. What happens when you cross breed a horse with an ass? you get a mule and this mule cannot reproduce itself. Perfect example of what you are saying, except there is no continuation in this species. Have you ever been to a farm? talk to a farmer, you will get alot of insight into animal reproduction. Also there are roses which have been genetically altered to create a black rose, this black rose CANNOT reproduce itself, it can only be genetically created from a host rose, but this new rose cannot create a new black rose.


Now Mendel's law defines this:

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

2) The Law of Independent Assortment: Genes for different traits are sorted separately from one another so that the inheritance of one trait is not dependent on the inheritance of another.

3) The Law of Dominance: An organism with alternate forms of a gene will express the form that is dominant.


Now i can understand that the process of change could be explained through the Law of Dominance, but unless humans have an alternate for of a gene which is not particular to a human being then there can be a change, again, mutation, because the only thing that has changed in observation has been the dominance of hair color, skin color, etc. Changes in phenotype do not necessarily constitute an evolution. Just like a black man having a child with a white woman, the dominant traits will surface, but that does not necessarily create a new being, if you call that evolution, then you still have alot of observation to do.

 

Once again, evolution is not about how life started, it is about what happened (and happens) to living populations. Please explain why you would not expect to see any gaps if evolution were true, then explain why the fossil record starts with single-celled organisms (about 3.6 billion years ago), and multicellular organisms only appear about 640 million years ago, and mammals were not seen before about 300 million years ago, and modern humans not before about 300,000 years ago.

Once again you are using supposition to create a fact. There is no scientific process or technique to determine the true age of a being or substance beyond 50,000 years. So claiming that they are that old is not acceptable.

 

...and your DNA explanation,but how can we change, or evolve into a different species, unless we mate with a different species and combine our DNA.

Again, here, you haven't been paying attention to any of my posts on genetics... mutations can occur as a result of a variety of processes. It's impossible to mate with a different species... but anyone who was paying attention in their college biology classes (and maybe even high school...) knows that mutations occur for a variety of reasons.

No biologist, not one, is unaware of the numerous experiments of the effects of radiation on embryonic/fetal development. Carcinogens also cause mutations to occur... all kinds of environmental factors can cause it. And sometimes, nature just screws up... mismatching of the wrong amino acids in a gene sequence during reproduction can cause a mutation.

I really think you need to fully read Douglas Futuyma's Evolutionary Biology. It is the most basic, most widely accepted "Bible" of evolutionary biology.

Now i can understand that the process of change could be explained through the Law of Dominance, but unless humans have an alternate for of a gene which is not particular to a human being then there can be a change, again, mutation, because the only thing that has changed in observation has been the dominance of hair color, skin color, etc. Changes in phenotype do not necessarily constitute an evolution.

1. Divergence of phenotype is precisely how we classify different species in the phylogenetic tree, PENA. Look at RC_69's diagrams once more... It can't be explained any simpler for you than this... There is no end to the magnitude of phenotypic/genotypic variation that can occur... There are no imaginary limits. The difference between, say an Asian and an African, compared to a human and a shark, for example, is in the degree of phenotypic variation.

None of your Creationist-imagined invisible boundaries to phenotypic/genotypic divergence have ever been demonstrated, nor does there even exist a scientific hypothesis upon which such a conclusion can ever be proven... In nature, there are no boundaries, except those we delineate in our minds to make sense of all the interconnections and distinctions between life.

2. Mendel knew nothing about DNA. While his research is a benchmark of the first time we begin to understand heredity, he had absolutely no knowledge of the intricate mechanism of biological heredity. All he did was empirically observe the changes through non-invasive experimentation... .cross-breeding. He couldn't look and see what was actually causing phenotypic variations of his crossbreeds. Therefore, it's not accurate to refer to his studies, and then completely ignore the research that followed and improved and refined his findings, and has been accepted by the entire scientific community... as well as various religious communities.

Again, if you even understood HOX gene mutation and the relation of Mitochondrial DNA through a species' evolutionary lineage... you might not be saying what you're attempting to say here.

Again, let me spell it out for you carefully... Since the idea of "species" is simply a delineation that we created, nature is not subject to following the imaginary "roadmarks" we put on evolution. We put them there because it helps us understand what's already happened... but nature doesn't know anything such as "species." Nature sees amino acids, chemicals... we call them codons, and genes, DNA, chromosomes... to help us understand our perception of what these compounds do.

What you're trying to say here is that a species can't evolve, not for any scientific reason but because you think that by our calling one organism a "species" and another organism a different "species", simply because the two are less related than say, brother and sister... but you're ignoring the resemblance of one species to another on the chemical level. My guess is because you don't understand the chemical mechanisms themselves... and you cl

 

R2D2-PENA:
I can understand your DNA explanation, but how can we change, or evolve into a different species, unless we mate with a different species and combine our DNA. Because if remember my genetics correctly, i am a mixture or combination of me predecessor's DNA, which in turn deliver a new DNA, but the basic structure of this DNA remains the same.[/blockquote]It mostly remains the same. Virtually all humans are born with some DNA that is different from any DNA found in either parent.

The only other way i know of modifying DNA in nature would be through mutation, i.e. a deformation.

The words "mutation" and "deformation" are not synonymous. The vast majority of mutations result in little or no change to the organism. Some result in changes that make the organism different in some significant way. Often such differences make the organism less able to survive and reproduce in a given environment, sometimes such differences have little or no effect on the organisms ability to survive and reproduce in a given environment. Occasionally such differences make the organism better able to survive and reproduce in a given environment.

What happens when you cross breed a horse with an ass? you get a mule and this mule cannot reproduce itself. Perfect example of what you are saying, except there is no continuation in this species.

No, this has nothing to do with what I am saying. It is clear from your confusion that you have no idea of what evolution is, or how it works. That is not a crime, of course, but perhaps you should refrain from trying to convince people that it is not true until you know what it is.

Have you ever been to a farm?

Yes, many times.

talk to a farmer, you will get alot of insight into animal reproduction.

With all due respect to farmers, as a biologist I already know a great deal about animal (and plant, and fungus, and bacterial, and protist...) reproduction.

Also there are roses which have been genetically altered to create a black rose, this black rose CANNOT reproduce itself, it can only be genetically created from a host rose, but this new rose cannot create a new black rose.

Are you suggesting that because this one particular variety cannot reproduce, that then no "genetically altered" organism can reproduce? If not, then what is your point? For that matter, if so, then what is your point anyways?

Now Mendel's law defines this:

1) The Law of Segregation: Each inherited trait is defined by a gene pair. Parental genes are randomly separated to the sex cells so that sex cells contain only one gene of the pair. Offspring therefore inherit one genetic allele from each parent when sex cells unite in fertilization.

For those who are unfamiliar, "gene" is not specific enough for biologists as a rule. A locus is a particular part of your DNA that essentially codes for a particular characteristic, say eye colour. An allele is one particular sequence of DNA at a locus, say blue or brown. Humans are "diploid", meaning that we have two alleles at each locus (with a few exceptions that are not important for our purposes here). That means that you have two alleles for eye colour (they could be blue + blue, blue + brown, or brown + blue). Sperm produced by men and eggs produced by women are "haploid", they each get only one allele at each locus, determined at random from the two in the diploid cells (if my eye colour alleles are blue and brown, then each of my sperm would have a 50% chance of carrying a blue eye allele, and a 50% chance of carrying a brown eye allele). Of course, when a sperm and egg fuse the result is a diploid cell which may then grow into a new human. Not all organisms are like this, many are haploid as adults, many do not reproduce sexually, some are even quadriploid (4 alleles at each locus), etc. It is important to note that many traits are not "defined by a gene

 

Snowdog, that is a good point on how the animistic points of eastern religions try to show that we are animals as well. When people fail to realize this it hinders our ability to learn about ourselves, who we are and why we do what we do.


And probably the easiest way of explaining how evolution works is by illustrating how man kind has bred dogs. If mankind can do this in a few thousand years(ie. the varied forms of dogs who are all descendants of wolves). Imagine what hundreds of millions of years of evolution can do shaped by changes in the natural environment and mutations.

 

R2D2-PENA:
Once again you are using supposition to create a fact. There is no scientific process or technique to determine the true age of a being or substance beyond 50,000 years. So claiming that they are that old is not acceptable.

So, you believe that all those physicists, geologists, astronomers, etc. are totally wrong? Perhaps you could read this <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/dating.html> (or, for a more general discussion, this: <http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-age-of-earth.html>) and then explain to all those physicists (the ones who have figured out how to make nuclear reactors, atomic clocks, and similar devices that rely on the same principals) why they are all wrong. I would be quite frankly amazed if you knew and understood more about it than those who have spent their whole lives studying physics, but feel free to show them wrong (and then prepare for your Nobel Prize). After that, you could follow up with explaining to all those geologists how they are wrong about the geology of this world. If you still have time, perhaps you could let those astronomers in on what they have been doing wrong. But, just for the moment, explain why it is that you think that radiometric dating is not valid.

Peez

 

Wait a minute, I'm confused.

Ok, so evolution is like a tree. Fine. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't this the basic scenario of evolution:

1. Random mistake in genes provides slight advantage of one organism over the others of its species.
2. This advantaged organism reproduces, and its offspring have this same advantage. This continues until the advantage has spread to the whole species.
3. Rinse, repeat.

So if this is what happens, the other non-advantaged members of the species are replaced. Isn't this sounding pretty linear? I mean, think about it in the very first step, the very first bacteria or whatever.

 

ktw: You're on the right track with the first part, but then there's something you're overlooking...

Put it this way...

It takes a diminishing of environmental resources to "squeeze" the population down to the better suited. There is no concrete line that says, for example, that some of the more poorly suited members of a species will not also survive.

Consider the numerous varieties of fish you can find in a single lake... obviously one of those species is the most well-suited to its environment... but numerous factors have allowed other species, including perhaps those predecessors who were not perfectly, but well-enough suited, to still survive. Coelocanth is a perfect example of one species whose numbers were significantly narrowed... such that we thought it had been extinct for millions of years, but we finally found a few... indicating that in some remote pockets, coelocanth managed to survive and thrive.

Think about this for a second... just because you have more diverse genetic material than your parents that might suit you better to survival doesn't mean your parents instantly die off or become completely sterile and unable to have other offspring with different genetic combinations, maybe even combinations producing traits closer to their own, rather than your advanced traits.

Just because a species diverges does not mean that the preceding generation's numbers are always completely wiped out. If just a few of them survive, they might continue to produce other genetic offspring without the mutations of the more advanced offspring.

...and then there's this thing called migration. If a species finds itself dying off, it has a few choices... Some of the better-suited offspring may stay in a geographical area whose resources are changing, to which they are better adapted... but the numbers of offspring who aren't as well adapted to this change may leave, migrate to another area until they find one they are capable of surviving in... and guess what, they will thrive.

I'm guessing this is one reason coelocanth remained quite well-hidden, because they migrated to areas where just a few of them could survive... and judging from the massive geological changes that have occurred since the time they thrived all over, maybe they could only find a few pocket environments on earth suitable for them to survive in. Looking at the fossil records between pockets might also lead scientists to determine exactly what those patterns of migration were.

Then again... I'm not a biology expert, per se, so maybe they have already found some of this evidence.

Again, remember... evolution isn't linear because the parent species doesn't necessarily instantaneously and suddenly become extinct (nor sterile) once it gives rise to the daughter species... they both could continue to have more offspring... and one species might continue to evolve and adapt, and the other might just continue to migrate and develop technology (like we have) and preserve itself... thus avoiding the environmental "squeezes" that force the "necessity" for adaptation.

 

Ok. My bio teacher is a moron.

Anyhoo.

But why wouldn't the advantaged ones drive the others to extinction? I know it wouldn't be instantaneous, but still.

Ok, how's this for an analogy. There's a group of primitive people living in the forest, surviving off of what they can catch and eat.

Then, one day, a baby is born. And when this baby grows up, it can run significantly faster than the other people in the community. Let's call him Jeremy. This automatically grants Jeremy a larger food supply, because he can catch some animals that were too fast for the others. Now I need to point out that this is not a society per se, because it's every man for himself. So let's say another man is chasing after a rabbit to eat. Jeremy comes up and, because he is faster, catches the rabbit and eats it. The other man would be hungry.

So this continues for a while, with Jeremy getting more food and the others getting less. Now Jeremy has kids. And his kids are faster than the normal people as well. Their effect on the community would be even greater, because instead of one fast guy getting more food, its four or five of them.

Then they have kids. And they have kids. Et cetera. After each generation, not only does the family tree of Jeremy grow, but the pressures put on the 'normal' people get higher and higher. Now, instead of just not receiving the same amount of food, the 'normal' people cannot get enough food, because of all the little Jeremy spawns running around catching all the rabbits. Some of the 'normal' people cannot get enough food, and starve.

Natural selection at work. The advantaged members of a group have, well, an advantage over the others. Now if I continued Jeremy's Tale further, wouldn't the 'normal' people starve, because the Jeremites are eating all of the rabbits? Relatively soon there would only be Jeremites, because the 'normal' people couldn't catch enough food with all this new competition around.

-

So why isn't it the same with a species? Wouldn't the advantaged members and their ilk eventually drive the 'normal' ones into their graves? Regardless of whether the 'normal' ones immediately die or have their own offspring, which they obviously would, their days would be numbered.

 

ktw: Every species evolves... don't forget that. Just as there are factors that make Joebob a better hunter, there are factors that make Fluffy a better rabbit, able to outrun Joebob... and so on and so forth.

If there are factors that can contribute to the proliferation of a new species of predator, the same genetic and environmental factors will put pressure on prey to evolve and survive, too.

This is part of the answer... another component may be geographical separation. It's not always true that every time a species evolves to be superior, it puts total pressure on all other species in the area... including predators and prey. Also, think about this... if Joebob's advanced species thrives, and Fred's less than advanced species migrates to another area where resources are less scarce... Joebob doesn't just go out of his way to follow Fred's species and annihilate them when they don't pose a threat to Joebob's resources.

These are just a handful of variables that contribute to nonlinear evolution... there is no limit to the number of variables that do inevitably contribute to nonlinear evolution, ktw.

 

Every species evolves...

Every soul evolves as well...

 

I understand that the Earth has been around for about 5 billion years or so. Then all of the sudden about 100,000 years ago, God decided to plunk intelligent mammals here and see what they do?

Doesn't make sense to me.

 

Wylding: This thread has nothing to do with souls. If the point of your thinly-veiled marketing of theological beliefs is to argue that Creation occurred because souls "evolve", souls are not observable or provable and the mere mentioning of them doesn't exactly warm me up to the nonsensical idea of Creation... nor does the retort have anything to do with the point of my comment within its context.

I should also clarify for the general audience here that what I meant to say is that every species is capable of being subject to pressures which force adaptation... which in turn makes it a little complicated for an emerging species to go around and entirely wipe out the status quo when the status quo also can, in a variety of ways, adapt to survive the impending threat or pressure of the emergence of a new species.

jamesdrax: Not sure if you're being cynical towards evolution or creation theory... please clarify. Are you making fun of the creationist idea that God suddenly plunked animals down on earth... or are you making fun of the evolutionist idea that mammals were introduced, as if "out of nowhere" (from the Creationist interpretation of evolution theory), relatively recently? I hope it's not the latter... because mammals have been around for nearly 300 million years, not 100,000.

 

Every soul evolves as well...

That sounds like the concept of reincarnation to me.


jamesdrax? Many species of whale (arguably the most intelligent beings on this planet next to man; infact, science cannot yet gauge the intelligence of some of the larger toothed species, like the Orca, or the Sperm whale, which has the largest brain on the planet.) have had the same relative brain size for approximately 30 million years.