Quote:


Also... yes typically the "parent" in an evolutionary step is sposta die.. as the evolution takes place as a result of a neccesary change to suite some part of their environment.. changes the "parent" species doesnt have, rendering them subject to species obsoletion.

Like for example.. say there were humans waay before the iceage.. (which I actually do believe) but anyway for examples sake..

the ice ages happens.. we get thicker skin, to survive the more frigid surface over which we must traverse, thicker hair and body hair to combat the colder average temps..and a host of other environment specific changes.. it would serve to evolutionary logic that the preceding species.. or evolutionary step of the same species.. ceases to exist due to said inadaptions. My quaf with darwin's theory of human evolution is what changes couldve neccesitated the fish to reptile to mammal transition.. what was introduced on this planet..because no natural change couldve done so.

[Email]anyhow..@_@[/Email] ALL HAIL THE SQUIDS..:: hides kamilari dish casually::..



1) Important! Chimpanzee's are NOT anywhere in our ancestry. They are the closest living relative we have, but the genetic variation suggests we split from them several million years ago. Most of our ancestral species HAVE died out. Homo Erectus, Habilus, etc. Look it up.
2) Also important, the idea is not that animals somehow guide their evolution to fit their needs, it's that random genetic variation over a long period of time causes a new form which is somehow advantageous and thus naturally selected. Fish could theoretically evolve into land animals through this process. Think about it, if no predator existed on land, a mutated fish which could survive on land for even extremely short amounts of time would have a huge advantage, or one which had mutated malformed fins might be able to push itself about on land. The mutation becoems more common, further mutations occur -> eventually it's different enough it can no longer breed and is speciated.

Also, as a side note - stop calling atheists evolutionists. I don't 'believe' in evolution. I think it's so far the most logical theory that exists. If someone came up with something that didn't involve magic or ancient books, but otherwise had less holes, I'd probably think of it as a viable theory as well. (ie. if it turned out all current species simultaneously popped into existance from some reeaaally unprobable natural event, i could probably accept that.) Seriously though, I don't see why it's necessary to believe in A) god or B) evolution.

anyways, rant over. Continue flame war!