I have several questions regarding evolution and I would like to have each response to include their level of qualification or background on this topic in the posts as well please. The thing I am most confused about is regarding the "evolution of distinct species from one common ancestor" which states that ie. fish, worms, humans, were NOT created separately by god but evolved from I don't know, the random collision of molecules and genetic mutations during reproduction. 1. If humans evolved from a common ancestor as fish, why are there still fish? 2. If humans evolved from chimps, why are there humans AND chimps. You would suspect that one genetic mutation being selected for and results in a higher likelihood of reproductive success would involve several SEQUENTIAL steps before humans and chimps became 2 DISTINCT species. ie. look at the picture below for instance 3. If evolution is correct in this case, it doesn't explain why humans are the only species who have language, socialization, and cognition (the last one as debatable). These seem to be traits that would be selected for from a PLETHORA of species. it would make more sense if all 6 of the above species still existed. Instead we have chimps from the left side, and humans from the right side. Sure there are fossils which seem to suggest those in the middle existed at one point but there seems to be a commonality from questions 1-3 that the most distant ancestors seem to survive at the same time as the most recent (ie. chimps vs. Humans are here but Neanderthals have died, fish and humans are here but the "walking fish" have died) but the "transition forms" disappear. Under this example, Creationism seems to be a more likely explanation as to why we find species to be DISTINCT and can only reproduce amongst themselves.
These are questions they normally teach in most high schools. You could pick up a book with a qualified author and know what evolution is about. Or even google. If you are too lazy to do any, these two topics are retreads of the same topic you're asking. http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=99931&highlight=evolution+chimp http://bbs.clutchfans.net/showthread.php?t=95713&highlight=evolution+chimp
I have no qualification, beyond the ability to think critically which most humans possess. The question seems to me to be a non-sequiter. You may as well ask why bacteria exists. Why shouldn't there still be fish? Do you think oceans should be devoid of life, or do you think evolution suggests that oceanic sea-people should have evolved in their place? Humans didn't evolve from present day chimps. You said it yourself, evolution says that all species have a common ancestor. Not that we evolved from chimpanzees. Humans are not the only species that are sociable and have cognition. As for human language, I see no reason to presume that it is a trait that would arise from a "plethora" of species. I suspect the biological mechanisms underlying human language are quite complex and largely not understood. For it to evolve in organisms may very well be extremely rare. That does not imply that it requires a miracle, in the supernatural sense.
those two threads just debate whether or not one should be taught in schools or not or if one theory is better than the other. It does not explain the questions I have listed above. I also have a Biology degree and have taken Evolution as well as Vertebrate, Invertebrate Biology, and have a 3.0 GPA which isn't anything to brag about. And no, I was not exposed to these questions at the high school level. So that's why I am posting this question. Maybe you can give me some insight then, since you seem to be knowledgeable about this topic.
-->The question seems to me to be a non-sequiter. You may as well ask why bacteria exists. Why shouldn't there still be fish? Do you think oceans should be devoid of life, or do you think evolution suggests that oceanic sea-people should have evolved in their place? The reason why I am posing this question is that if humans evolved from fish, then why have fish survived for so long while the transition species have died off. If fish and humans had a common ancestor, then you would expect to see fish fossils, not modern day fish. Instead all of the transition species are not to be found except a FEW instances of fossils in Asia (ie. Myllokunmingia). -->Humans didn't evolve from present day chimps. You said it yourself, evolution says that all species have a common ancestor. Not that we evolved from chimpanzees. Again, this has to do with the previous question. Why have chimps still survived and the transition species have died. Why do the humans and chimps do not co-exist with these species. -->Humans are not the only species that are sociable and have cognition. Where are you getting this from? The definition of being human is having a developed Mind. As for human language, I see no reason to presume that it is a trait that would arise from a "plethora" of species. I suspect the biological mechanisms underlying human language are quite complex and largely not understood. For it to evolve in organisms may very well be extremely rare. That does not imply that it requires a miracle, in the supernatural sense. This is true, but it does not provide evidence to support the common ancestor argument if NONE of the transitional species NOR the subphylums of our common ancestors have these traits.
Perhaps, but it offers a better explanation of the concept of distinct species being only able to reproduce amongst themselves. If humans one day were the common ancestors of a three legged human and a hermaphrodite, it would have to be attributed to ONE genetic mutation that became selected for, and that ONE genetic mutated human being would be unable to reproduce successfully with a normal human being, which logically cannot phylogentically split the human species into two subphylums.
durvasa covered most of your questions, but I'd like to add something to this one. Complex traits, such as the ability to use language, are evolved over vast amounts of time. Still, there may be a key mutation at a particular time that subsequently facilitated the development of the trait. This is a phenomenon called historical contingency, meaning that were it not for such-and-such mutation, the rest of the evolutionary process would not be possible. So, if you have 10 independent populations of a species, a mutation that leads to an advantageous trait in one may not occur in the other nine. A vivid example of this phenomenon was discovered in an experiment on E. coli populations: here is a good writeup of what happened and why it is important to evolutionary theory.
Well, let's see. First the earth cooled. And them the dinosaurs came, but they got too big and fat, so they all died and they turned into oil. And then the Arabs came and they bought Mercedes Benzes. And Prince Charles started wearing all of Lady Di's clothes. I couldn't believe it.
this would be an example of an exception not the norm. There are SAME SPECIES of birds who do not mate with each other simply due to the fact that one group prefers to fly in a more northern area and one group in a southern area.
"Fish" is not a species. It encompasses many species. At some time in the past, some species of fish evolved into something other than fish. The rest didn't. I really don't understand the objection here.
Ok, say for instance Amphibians Ok, let's say for instance the fish that swim in the ocean. How come the transitional forms did not survive? In fact, I would go so far as to say I have not seen any evidence of living transitional forms of species. Again, you may point to fossils, but I will tell you that these fossils are not many and the interpretation of these fossils are subject to debate, ie. this may look like a wing to you but it doesn't to me.
the fish had no reason to evolve, they were well enough adapted to their niche so even without genetic mutations they were able to reproduce and still maintain their population.
You're missing the point. A few mutations here and there won't make an individual unable to mate with another of his/her species. It is the accumulation of numerous mutations that ultimately prevents interbreeding. As with your bird example, if populations are isolated from each other for a long enough period of time, they will eventually become sexually incompatible. This is necessary, even absent specific environmental factors, due to genetic drift.
