Evolutionists -- Help with understanding!

[DanDaManJC]

So I need some clarification... since evolution's an ongoing process.. why don't we see modern versions of transitional forms alive now?

The question is a bit more specific... evolution + natural selection chooses pretty optimal solutions. That's why you end up seeing species that evolved -- geographically completely seperate from each other (ie Asian and N.America weeds etc) -- that share the same characteristics. The environment dictated that those species evolve with those optimal adaptations.

Now that said... why shouldn't we now see a modern day Neanderthal in Africa? Now not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of a Neanderthal -- but since evolution's an ongoing process, should we not see evolution naturally selecting more evolved species in forms that work... and obviously humans were quite the success. Or perhaps.. why shouldn't we see modern day whale-cows? Again -- not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of the whale-cow or Neanderthal... but since we came from simple bacteria... it seems like we should be seeing the whole chain of bacteria -> human evolution (or similar bacteria -> to more complex) evolution happening today. Obviously we won't see the bacteria morph over 1billion years, but we'd see some tweener states.

My gut tells me this is a fallacious claim, but I'm not completely confident on my understanding of how evolution works.

 

[Cheeseplug]

Every single living thing you see is a transitional species.

 

[glenn1]

Wiped out in the Great Flood?

 

[Gibsons]

Every single living thing you see is a transitional species.

that won't be /thread, but probably should be.

also, from the OP, we aren't really descended from 'bacteria.' Today's bacteria are certainly quite different from our single celled common ancestors.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Wiped out in the Great Flood?

lol nice cartoon.

Cheese -- thanks. That's a good way to put it. The question was, since we're all always transitioning... why shouldn't there also be living examples of say dinosaur -> bird (if dinosaurs still lived)... or perhaps the cow-whales.

Stated another way, since evolution is ongoing, our environment pretty constant, and thus natural selection will also favor the same or similar adaptations, why do we not see another similar chain of evolution leading up to what will be humanoid in the future?

that won't be /thread, but probably should be.

also, from the OP, we aren't really descended from 'bacteria.' Today's bacteria are certainly quite different from our single celled common ancestors.

Yeah, I realize that modern day bacteria and our common ancestor were very different. I've seen the evidence, but I was trying to talk to a creationist and they brought up this point. My gut instinct just tells me it's a misunderstanding of the theory... but I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

 

[Freshgeardude]

Evolution takes millions of years. 100 years in a 200 million evolution doesn't even look like a dent.


Even 1000s of years, if continuous observation was recorded, changes would not be seen. Over a million year period it may seem like a noticeable change.


A "whale cow" might not be feasible in this time but in 200 million years it might.

 

[Ken g6]

So what you're asking is "why hasn't convergent evolution produced more species identical to transitional forms we see in the fossil record?"

In most cases in the short term, another, different species is successful enough at exploiting an environment that it takes over that niche from any other species that could survive there. In the longer term, the whole ecosystem may change so much that there is no longer a niche to fill.

To your specific niches mentioned, humans are so successful that we have taken over any niches neanderthals may have filled; and we've changed ecosystems so much that those niches probably don't exist anymore.

But if you're looking for modern-day whale-cows, here you go:


Notice how they're even called a "pod", like whales?

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

lol nice cartoon.

Cheese -- thanks. That's a good way to put it. The question was, since we're all always transitioning... why shouldn't there also be living examples of say dinosaur -> bird (if dinosaurs still lived)... or perhaps the cow-whales.

Stated another way, since evolution is ongoing, our environment pretty constant, and thus natural selection will also favor the same or similar adaptations, why do we not see another similar chain of evolution leading up to what will be humanoid in the future?



Yeah, I realize that modern day bacteria and our common ancestor were very different. I've seen the evidence, but I was trying to talk to a creationist and they brought up this point. My gut instinct just tells me it's a misunderstanding of the theory... but I'm not quite sure how to explain it.

I don't think we'll ever see the same species evolve twice (e.g. chimps -> neanderthals), simply because all other life is evolving at the same time. This means that the environment is always changing, so the same adaptations aren't necessarily advantageous, even though they once were.

 

[oynaz]

Species go extinct all the time. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, but it is not like every single species of dinosaur evolved into a different kind of bird.

Simplified, evolution goes something like this:

T-Rex: Extinct
Triceratops: Extinct
Diplodocus: Extinct
Velociraptor (or whatever dino is at the root of the avian species): Evolved into birds

It does NOT go:

T-Rex: Eagle
Triceratops: Hawk:
Diplodocus: Chicken
Velociraptor: Ostrich

But you might want to pick up a book on the theory og evolution from a library.

 

[DanDaManJC]

Species go extinct all the time. Birds evolved from dinosaurs, but it is not like every single species of dinosaur evolved into a different kind of bird.

Simplified, evolution goes something like this:

T-Rex: Extinct
Triceratops: Extinct
Diplodocus: Extinct
Velociraptor (or whatever dino is at the root of the avian species): Evolved into birds

It does NOT go:

T-Rex: Eagle
Triceratops: Hawk:
Diplodocus: Chicken
Velociraptor: Ostrich

But you might want to pick up a book on the theory og evolution from a library.

Yeah, I do understand that it's a bunch of small changes -- the style of changes that dogs have gone through under human care -- but over millions of years. I do need to pick up a book though .

I think ConstipatedVigilante understood my question the best... basically the counter point was that we have these evolutionary chains of events, caused by natural selection in pretty much constant environments, therefore since evolution is an on going process... those evolutionary chains should also translate into other eras. The counter to that counter is that since human inception, humans have drastically changed the environment.

In reply to Ken -- yeah that's also pretty spot on. With that terminology.. the question boils down to, "why shouldn't there be convergent evolution occurring now, independent of time."

 

[EarthwormJim]

So I need some clarification... since evolution's an ongoing process.. why don't we see modern versions of transitional forms alive now?

The question is a bit more specific... evolution + natural selection chooses pretty optimal solutions. That's why you end up seeing species that evolved -- geographically completely seperate from each other (ie Asian and N.America weeds etc) -- that share the same characteristics. The environment dictated that those species evolve with those optimal adaptations.

Now that said... why shouldn't we now see a modern day Neanderthal in Africa? Now not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of a Neanderthal -- but since evolution's an ongoing process, should we not see evolution naturally selecting more evolved species in forms that work... and obviously humans were quite the success. Or perhaps.. why shouldn't we see modern day whale-cows? Again -- not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of the whale-cow or Neanderthal... but since we came from simple bacteria... it seems like we should be seeing the whole chain of bacteria -> human evolution (or similar bacteria -> to more complex) evolution happening today. Obviously we won't see the bacteria morph over 1billion years, but we'd see some tweener states.

My gut tells me this is a fallacious claim, but I'm not completely confident on my understanding of how evolution works.

Neanderthals did not arise in Africa, but instead Eurasia. Even if they did, modern humans would have displaced them. I think you're forgetting a key point about evolution. Every living organism is undergoing a struggle to survive. Not just against other members of its species, but also against other species.

Neanderthals were not built at all to survive in Africa. Their bodies do not look like they were selected for high endurance. They could not really hunt animals in the way that people successfully do and did in Africa, chasing down animals (for days sometimes) till they're too tired to move.

Also just look at how farmers and domesticating communities have practically displaced all but a few hunter gather groups in the world. All the same species, but you rarely see hunter-gatherer groups. It's not just species themselves that are undergoing natural selection, but styles of living too.

You said not 1 to 1 copies of Neanderthals in Africa. Are you forgetting how closely related we are to neanderthals? Can you not think that we're the offshoot cousins of Neanderthals that arose in Africa? We're those weeds that evolved in different environments from the same common ancestors.

Your last point, you would need massive extinctions, as in all forms of animal life dying before you would see a bacteria to complex form of life change. There's already existing complex forms of life filling already existing niches to their peak. Natural selection chooses those forms that best suite their niche based on available life. How exactly would a simple organism suddenly be selected to be more complex and fill a niche that has been filed by life that has been selected for for millions and millions of years. What we see today are the best of the best of the best for the current circumstances.

 

[Jeff7]

Fun and semi-related Ark question: Where'd Noah store all the marine animals that would have perished during the flood?


(Salt water oceans + rain that'd effectively turn the planet into one enormous freshwater ocean = lots of dead saltwater animals. And of course, a lot of aquatic life forms need to live in very shallow water; they wouldn't do so well in a miles-deep ocean.)

..
Neanderthals were not built at all to survive in Africa. Their bodies do not look like they were selected for high endurance. They could not really hunt animals in the way that people successfully do and did in Africa, chasing down animals (for days sometimes) till they're too tired to move.
...

Anytime I think of this hunting technique, Pepe le Pew immediately comes to mind.

 

[Babbles]

Every single living thing you see is a transitional species.

This.

 

[ScottyB]

Gravitationists, why is it, if gravity is real, that a feather falls slower than a rock? I'm no expert, but if your "theory" is correct, shouldn't they fall at the same speed?

 

[NL5]

Gravitationists, why is it, if gravity is real, that a feather falls slower than a rock? I'm no expert, but if your "theory" is correct, shouldn't they fall at the same speed?

I assume your joking - since they fall at the exact same speed.

 

[0roo0roo]

why would you see an 1:1 copy of a neanderthal anymore than a 1:1 copy of a trex today? They died out, it happens.
humans are one of the few species with very few close cousins left around though, but we are the most dangerous animal around which is probably why. we find it rather easy to kill other ethnicities, never mind other related species. its probable our ancestors wiped out any close competition around them at the time.

 

[ScottyB]

I assume your joking - since they fall at the exact same speed.

In a vacuum, yes. I was mocking the O.P.

 

[DanDaManJC]

In a vacuum, yes. I was mocking the O.P.

well to be honest I don't actually believe the creationist line -- as mentioned before I was talking with another creationist and I didn't have an answer to his objection. That's why I asked for clarification. To that end, good replies from all, obviously I do need to read a bit more.

 

[IHateMyJob2004]

So I need some clarification... since evolution's an ongoing process.. why don't we see modern versions of transitional forms alive now?

The question is a bit more specific... evolution + natural selection chooses pretty optimal solutions. That's why you end up seeing species that evolved -- geographically completely seperate from each other (ie Asian and N.America weeds etc) -- that share the same characteristics. The environment dictated that those species evolve with those optimal adaptations.

Now that said... why shouldn't we now see a modern day Neanderthal in Africa? Now not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of a Neanderthal -- but since evolution's an ongoing process, should we not see evolution naturally selecting more evolved species in forms that work... and obviously humans were quite the success. Or perhaps.. why shouldn't we see modern day whale-cows? Again -- not necessarily a 1-to-1 copy of the whale-cow or Neanderthal... but since we came from simple bacteria... it seems like we should be seeing the whole chain of bacteria -> human evolution (or similar bacteria -> to more complex) evolution happening today. Obviously we won't see the bacteria morph over 1billion years, but we'd see some tweener states.

My gut tells me this is a fallacious claim, but I'm not completely confident on my understanding of how evolution works.

I wish I knew the island. Anyways, some bats migrated to an island. the islands insects are mostly on theground (not flying being the point here). And the bats are EVOLVING (not devolving) into wingless creatures? Something like this? It was on discovery, animal planet or TLC about a month ago.

"evolution + natural selection" - thus proving 1+1=1. I think we found the Neanderthal you are looking for!

 

[DanDaManJC]

I wish I knew the island. Anyways, some bats migrated to an island. the islands insects are mostly on theground (not flying being the point here). And the bats are EVOLVING (not devolving) into wingless creatures? Something like this? It was on discovery, animal planet or TLC about a month ago.

"evolution + natural selection" - thus proving 1+1=1

well not quite. both parties in our discussion understood that evolution is an excruciatingly slow process... again, for the sake of discussion, another poster here put the point succinctly -- the objection was basically "why don't we see more examples of convergent evolution, especially independent of time... given that the environment on the earth is pretty much unchanged"

to which the general reply is that what we evolved from is no longer in existence and also importantly that since humans are around our environment is quite different. the other good point was the stuff about natural selection -- natural selection doesn't just choose based solely on how your species would adapt over another member of the same species, but also in competition with other species, so again -- the human factor with that point is huge.

 

[Amused]

Platypus, Manatee, etc...

At any rate, every animal is in transition. Your problem is not seeing/guessing what they will be next.

 

[Gibsons]

I wish I knew the island. Anyways, some bats migrated to an island. the islands insects are mostly on theground (not flying being the point here). And the bats are EVOLVING (not devolving) into wingless creatures? Something like this? It was on discovery, animal planet or TLC about a month ago.

"evolution + natural selection" - thus proving 1+1=1. I think we found the Neanderthal you are looking for!

The evolution of the bats in this case is toward increased fitness in their particular environment. There's a tendency of us humans to think things like "can't fly therefore less fit." But it's all dependent on context. In this particular environment, it might be better to not fly.

 

[ConstipatedVigilante]

well to be honest I don't actually believe the creationist line -- as mentioned before I was talking with another creationist and I didn't have an answer to his objection. That's why I asked for clarification. To that end, good replies from all, obviously I do need to read a bit more.

If you go to a local university and sit in on a few physical anthropology lectures, you'll get a pretty good basic understanding of this stuff.

 

[SparkyJJO]

It is easier to say that things somehow morphed over millions of years, and somehow bent the laws of physics to do so, than to say that it all was designed how it is.

 

[Gibsons]

It is easier to say that things somehow morphed over millions of years, and somehow bent the laws of physics to do so, than to say that it all was designed how it is.

the laws of physics were "bent?" wtf does that mean?