kozom1234 wrote:judgement14 wrote:honestly imo
natural evolution doesnt exist anymore
look me in the dorsal fin and say that again.
pantagruelo wrote:PS: i wouldn't call destroying the planet we live on "superior"
Magugag wrote:pantagruelo wrote:PS: i wouldn't call destroying the planet we live on "superior"
I don't see any other animals capable of such a feat! But then again, I can't drink with my nose, either... Hm.
Keydar wrote:pantagruelo wrote:evolution is change, advancement, adaption to changing environment, improvement of existing physiology...
NOT amount of time existing. so NO, having existed for the same amount of time but not having changed the same amount does NOT mean having evolved the same amount.
no matter if keydar's a science teacher or not...
You are completely discounting genetic drift as an aspect of biological evolution. Just because an animal's physiology does not appear to change over time due to its success in a static niche (living fossils) does not mean it is not evolving. This is why for example one can not say we evolved from monkeys but from a common ancestor of modern humans and modern monkeys. One may be tempted to say humans are more evolved than monkeys, but that is placing more evolutionary importance on brain function. Evolution is not only due to perceived change but also due to changes in genetic code which do not necessarily result in any large physiological change.
Keydar wrote: Even if they remain in the same niche and maintain almost identical physiology, they are still just as evolved as their arctic relatives, as they have been evolving for just as much time.
Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 2 guests