I was watching a documentary yesterday about supposidly extinct creatures being re-discovered. I began to wonder, the theory of evolution is basically survival of the fittest, if these animals are supposed to evolve into something more modern (i.e. what they are today), wouldn't the supposidly extinct animal evolve aswel? I was more in doubt when they re-discovered a fish which lived 6 million years ago, and supposidly evolved into the first land animals on the planet.

umh. in my point of view about evolution. evolution would only take place if the species needed to adapt at their environment thus making it easier to survive. if and only if the environment wouldn't change for about a hundred or thousand years they would not need to change what they have today. exemption to that rule would be us humans. we don't need to evolve to better suit the environment, we change the environment to suit us.

[ correct me if i'm wrong ]

Complicated.
BUt then evolution is.

Who said If the theory of evolution hasnt blown your mind with the possibilities, then you havnt understood it properly? I cant remember, but they were right.

basically evolution doesnt occur to whole species at once, its gradual and a certain direction might only be taken by a small isolated sub group...other groups of the same species might not change...or might change completly differently. this is becouse not all members of a species are under the same conditions, I.e some members might find themselves living in a warmer climate than their ancestors and adapt accoridngly, their relatives who've moved a thousand miles north would have to adapt to a colder climate and a million years later theres enough of a difference to call them 2 seperate species. Or maybe more....

Also with evolution you find something rather strange hapening that defies common sense, (whatever that is, anyone seen any recently?). Creatures adapt: i.e; some generations start to display changes and slight differences to their parents that for example help them swim faster(but of course not evry member of that generation gets the changes). This might not cause an evolutionary shift till a fast predator comes along and all the slow creatures get eaten...millions of years later the desendants are different enough to be called a different species. Basicaly your getting an effect of evolution before the cause....

Species is a very loaded word. It was used before people realised they could change, now we know they can..are they different species thousands or millions of years apart or are they same one but with go-faster stripes? Animals once thought to be seperate species are now known to interbreed( Like the elephant, I believe there are now known to be 3 seperate species...which can interbreed.)

I think evolution is proof that trying to draw a line in the sand and saying "this species stops here, and then this one starts here" is very very human, and very very silly.

Let me repeat it: Evolution is not about better, about worse, about up or down. It is about survival.

Any organism that has an environment in which it can survive has no need to change. That is why we still share this planet with animals that are "left over" from other periods of OUR evolution.

We know about 99% of the land on this planet. Given that there are literally tenths of thousand of beings on every square mile chances are good that we are yet to find many animals. Even some that we thought of as being extinct. And this especially because many of the uncharted places of this earth are in regions with an amazing biodiversity.

ED:Typo

Thanks all for clarifing that, I knew it wasn't some undiscovered flaw which would make me famous, I just didn't understand.

Damn link doesnt work

http://www.fukung.net/images/5601/evolutionowns.jpg

I remember on Discovery or Nat geo they had a leading scientist *forgot who* come speak and he said he believes in creationism because there is a flaw in the Evolutionary theory due to the lack of evidence of a certain land fish thingy.

Oh, that would not be the only one, but a leading physicists' or chemists' opinion on evolution is about as binding as my opinion....

It is also that some species can't evolve any further becausde they have evolved themselves into an evolutionary penninsula or dead end. They have become so specialized that in order to take one step forward, they would need to take 10 steps back and when the steps are the results of random genetic mutatation with no intermediary benefit, it is very unlikely that such a change would or could ever occur.

Oh, that makes perfect sense.

LOL, you can't evolve backwards! What says that can't evolve into a form similar to their ancestors?

Who ever thought up evolution was kind of moronic, because they say we evolved from monkeys and there are a variety of species of monkeys that arent evolving into anything all of them, so how did we come from monkeys.

First of all, read up about evolution. Don't state things without fully knowing what they mean when you don't even know who "thought up evolution"
We did not come from monkeys as you say evolution states. Evolution says we share a common ancestor with apes, not that we evolved from them.

As previously stated, it isn't that we evolved from 'monkeys', it is that we evolved from other primates, apes. Now, when you hear the term 'ape', perhaps you are instantly equating it with 'monkey'- but it just isn't the case. Just because you say it, doesn't make it so.

Evolution, in the simplest of terms, is mutation. Genetically, organisms will mutate in order to survive. We see this all the time. Look at a typical virus, like the flu virus. Each year we need to get a new vaccine to guard against the newest strain- why is there a 'new' strain? Is there some sort of a factory out there that keeps upgrading the virus and releasing it? Flu 2.0? Or is it because the virus has changed and mutated to such a degree, that a new vaccine needs to be administered?

Look at cockroaches, it is difficult to kill off an infestation- why? They begin to develop immunity to the poison you give to them, and they pass that off to their offspring, ensuring that their kind will live on.

If we start claiming that those who believe in evolution are 'moronic'... well, I'd be first inclined to ask what is the alternative that you believe in- creationism? That's convenient.

Open your eyes and take a look around, you see the footprints of evolution everywhere, we may not be seeing many other apes actively evolve into completely different species in front of our eyes, but we can see- on a genetic level, the mutation of an organism in an effort to survive. That is evolution.

It is moronic to believe one-sided arguments and to perpetuate them without checking them. I have stated it before:

Evolution does not need anybody to believe in it, it will still happen.
Believe dies out as soon as the last believer dies or quits believing.

Given those postulates what is more believable, the self sustaining or the in-need-of-believing?

ED:TYPO

I think creatures evolve over time but my beef with evolution is in the evolution of man.

"If pressed about man's ancestry, I would have to unequivocally say that all we have is a huge question mark. To date, there has been nothing found to truthfully purport as a transitional specie to man, including Lucy, since 1470 was as old and probably older. If further pressed, I would have to state that there is more evidence to suggest an abrupt arrival of man rather than a gradual process of evolving."

This is not a statement from a nobody or even a person who knows alot, its from a person that knows everything there is to know about mans evolution. Richard Leakey. Any one wanna dispute him?

You are aware that evolution can be either abrupt (remember, abrupt is a relative concept here) or gradual? Dr. Leakey indicates that this is unknown...what's there to dispute really?

weareallsuckers,

I agree with Lilly on this. The statement made by Leakey is ambiguous, but gives the appearance of doubting the hominid evolutionary line. Leakey is saying that our knowledge of the evolution of Man is not complete, this is a long way from saying the theory [of Man's evolution, not evolution as a whole] is untrue.

OK, yes I admit it does not mean evolution is untrue.

"nothing found to truthfully purport a transitional species to man"
hmm, I am trying to get on your side here but even if he is stating that our knowledge of the evolution of man is not complete because he has no real evidence of it, how can it be said that we have transitioned( is that a word?) from anything including an ape ancestor? From homo habilis to homo sapien we are led to believe we have transitional species for each step but there is none. Do you think there is real proof of transitional species of humans from an ape ancestor? What would that be when Leakey says there is none that shows any transition? I'm not trying to be difficult, I really think he's stating what he is saying, no ambiguity.

He could be stating exactly as you say, and this is the reason I try not to use quotes in defence of points I'm trying to make. You have to assume what the quoter is meaning.

Leakey could also be meaning "Well, the fossils we've found seem to indicate a transition from Ardipithecus to Homo, but we aren't 100% certain." He's not, in my opinion, stating we did not share a common ancestor with apes, he's stating that the fossils we've found aren't necessarily the true picture of the hominid ancestral tree.

I guess thats really my point Leonardo, not that evolution didn't happen, which quite obviously it has, but is it as defined as we are led to believe, especially in mans evolution? It's just a point that tells me we really know stuff all about how man evolved. It doesn't mean that I don't believe in evolution just that it sort of justifies me in my thinking that we may have evolved down a different path. Apparently there is no fossil evidence for pre ardipithecus ape species but don't quote me on that one.

The again, why should there been any fossil evidence? It's actually quite rare for animal remains to survive, especially those that don't frequent swampy rivers.

Of the 6,600,000,000 people alive today, how many do you think will die such that their remains become fossilised and can be readily found in 2 million years time?

I would be a lot more suspicious of human evolution if there weren't missing links .....

Here's a link to the hominid ancestry. A couple of fossils found that predate Ardipithecus but they haven't been able to be shown to link to any later genus.

Just because the links between genera aren't always conclusively made does not mean they aren't the most likely line of descent. In fact they are very likely but, as with most archaeological discoveries of this type, there is always some doubt. We have no evidence for any other line of descent, I know that doesn't mean there wasn't but it does mean it is much more unlikely.

I suppose. How come there is such an abundance of dinosaur fossils then? When we are shown evolutionary posters or pictures we see the different jumps between habilis to sapien and this appears to be the way it happened, 1470 man skull is an anomoly, it doesn't fit into the line of things nor does Neanderthal with his bigger brain (cavity).

How could that be if the evolutionary chart we are shown is correct based on brain cavity size? Neanderthals lived 120,000 years ago until 35,000 years ago but sapiens only evolved 100,000 years ago, were they both evolved from Heidelbergensis? Who knows? Who knows anything really? The only thing that refutes us being descended from Neanderthals is that they have found evidence in Israel of sapiens arriving there before them (and possibly the stigma)

In Australia we have skull finds of archaic type after graciles, similar to the Neanderthal problem. Much just doesn't make sense to me, I know they are doing thier best trying to work out how we came into being but seems the whole line is just another assumption after assumption. I get constantly asked here for proof for my outlandish ideas because "the fossil record shows it" but all it's showing me is that no one really knows whats going on with mans evolution. If Leakey doesn't know, how does anyone else?

A whale has a bigger brain cavity than a human.... does not disprove evolution either. So what is the point? Besides, there is no evidence that H. Sapiens is a descendant of H. Neanderthalis

Thanks for the link Leonardo, I see it shows Neanderthal and sapien both coming from Heidelbergensis, why is it assumed also that Neanderthals are extinct? Just because they don't appear as they are drawn, the man in the street could be from the Neanderthal line, who's to say they havent evolved as the ice age melted and become more sapien looking? Why would they develop different DNA from us when we share the same ancestor? All dogs can mate, they share a common ancestor, wouldn't Neanderthals only have different DNA if they came from a different lineage? I don't know, I just seem to have a zillion questions and I'm not ignorant of it all, I have been a follower of evolution for over 25 years and have many, many books here, I'm not googling my info.

It is assumed that H. neanderthalensis is extinct due to the very limited range of their expansion and that this area is now fairly well populated with no remnant populations of H. neander having been discovered there. As far as I can recall, the most recent fossils of them date from some 30,000 years ago.

That we didn't evolve from H. neander is fairly conclusive given the genetic and morphological evidence we have from their, and other hominid, fossils. Here is a link to an analysis of H. neander mitochondrial dna . This shows the degree of separateness between the two species (or sub-species perhaps). It does mention there is no evidence of any transfer of mtDNA between H. neander and H. sap, but does not draw any conclusions regarding the possibility of other genetic material from H. neander being incorporated into our genetic heritage.

Here is another link to a second analysis.

Like most reputable scientists will do, the speculation of whether interbreeding between H. neander and H. sap is not confirmed as there is not yet any concusive evidence of this occurring.

Well there lots of Dinos, all over the world in lots of environments for a very long time, so theres a good chance some bits will be fossilised, but it does mostly come down to luck. Also Dinos get good press these days since Jurrasic Park, so its easy to persuade some giant corporation to stump up the cash to send out an expedition to find some more. I know full well that, bar the members of Time Team, the rest of the Archaeology world is rather envious!

It doesnt take much for an experienced man to put together a picture of some ancient beastie he's never seen. A tooth or two will do, the rest is guesswork, but its Educated guesswork!
And tho it cant hope to be spot on its close enough for most purposes


I doubt any of the lineages are complete in the fossil record, and how could they be? So few creatures get fossilised, and its bloody hard to find them again afterwards! Its like looking for a needle in a haystack and theyre both made of rock...
And then you need a bit of experience to work out what you've found.

If I may be permitted an analogy: Its like a great big jigsaw, its very complicated and a lot of the bits are missing, weve got a couple of corners and some sky at the top but we've no idea what the picture will look like at the moment, but at least we know its a jigsaw and all we've got to do is find the rest of the pieces!

Which is still far better than the Creationists "This is the Picture, it was painted by a da Vinci 6000 years ago. Now stop asking questions and do as your told!"