• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Evolutionists -- Help with understanding!

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
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? 🙂

Now that was the /thread. For a succinct answer that's as good as you're going to get.
 
The change in phenotype and or genotype give rise to evolution. Genotype is more immediate however: take pesticides vs mosquitoes for example (as well as most species that have short generation turn over). The most "fit" individuals can survive a dose of harmful pesticides and that fitness will be passed onto the next generation.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a mathematical formula or method for deciding whether something is a transitional species? Something beyond individual interpretation.
 
Has anyone ever come up with a mathematical formula or method for deciding whether something is a transitional species? Something beyond individual interpretation.


Nearly every living thing today is a transitional species! The exceptions: things about to become extinct.
 
whale_cow.gif
 
the laws of physics were "bent?" wtf does that mean?

I'd bet dollars to doughnuts he's alluding to the usual creationist claptrap about thermodynamics. I can also nearly guarantee I've personally refuted that nonsense before to him directly and on several distinct occasions, yet that has never stopped him from returning to these threads and spruiking the same nonsense over and over again.

And SparkyJJO, it certainly is not easier to explain the origin of biological diversity through evolution than it would be to simply say "God did it," but in contrast to you, the rest of us are actually honest about the evidence and aren't too lazy to put forth the effort to understand it. Maybe some day when you grow up you'll be able to put aside your fairy tales and begin to think like the big boys.
 
Last edited:
thermodynamics aside, only evolution explains the f*cked up inefficient manner in which many biological systems are designed. that or the god is a f*ckup.
 
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.

see: Ostrich or Emu. pretty close.
 
Back
Top