Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Found this on another forum and thought it warranted posting here. I think it does a great job of illustrating and explaining how evolutionary speciation works and why the concept of a "missing link" is a term depreciated by scientists and misapplied by creationists:
Imagine that each dot is an individual in the population. The vertical axis is time. The colors and related letters indicate the species name assigned by some palaeontologist to a fossil member of the species.
As the figure illustrates, there is often a large degree of overlap between closely related species. For example, it is not clear where species I ends and species J starts. And, if we don't have all the information, then it may be difficult to tell whether some species is on one branch or another (for instance, does F branch from A, B, or C?). However, it is easy to tell that an individual of J is not the same as one of M, even though it is not clear where the boundary is between A (a common ancestor of J and M) and any of its descendants. Similarly, noone would confuse C with M, because the species has simply undergone too much change. Yet there is no single clear break between C and M.
If we find fossils that we call "transitional" between two species, we mean that these fossils show characteristics of two species, so, for instance, L and K are transitional species between C and M. This transitional quality typically expresses itself in fierce debates among palaeontologists about whether x is a y or a z (i.e. whether archaeopteryx is a dino or a bird, or, on a finer scale, whether a particular fossil hominid is a member of the species Homo Sapiens or Homo Erectus).
That explains evolution very well. We aren't going to find a missing link, because there probably wasn't just 1. Similarly, Modern man isn't the same animal we were 60,000 years ago. We have gone through genetic change, small as of yet, but we have changed.
There's no reason that our human genotype should remain static even today, though any problematic changes we might otherwise have to deal with are simply dealt with by our penchant for "adjusting" our environment (or letting medical science modify us, or treat our genetic disorders) rather than letting it put any pressure on us. If we let nature take it's course, a whole lot of us would die.
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MrBlueSky_ again"
One thing I like about this is that the maroon species A exists most of the way up through to K. That's a good way to show that it's possible for a parent species to continue to live on after a speciation event. It provides a simple answer to the typical question "If X evolved from Y, why is Y still around"?
"You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to MrBlueSky_ again"
One thing I like about this is that the maroon species A exists most of the way up through to K. That's a good way to show that it's possible for a parent species to continue to live on after a speciation event. It provides a simple answer to the typical question "If X evolved from Y, why is Y still around"?
So, there are no creationists out there who have a comment??
No "hey this really helps me grasp evolution and speciation, I could be wrong!" ???
I'm disappointed. (okay, not really ).
Give it time. Despite being created in MSPaint, it really is a good illustration, although one must also imagine a similar scenario in many, many, many more branches. It's best to simplify it like this, though, IMO.
Give it time. Despite being created in MSPaint, it really is a good illustration, although one must also imagine a similar scenario in many, many, many more branches. It's best to simplify it like this, though, IMO.
Yeah I'm just waiting for Campbell32 to come in and point out that it "looks like a tree, not a bush!"
Folks, just imagine it as one of those fractal images, where when you zoom in there's ever-increasing branches and tendrils.
Hmm yeah, maybe evolution operates under fractal principles?
Yes. That's a very good way of illustrating the idea, though I am sure that the Creationists will ignore it or say 'it's just imagination; just a 'theory'.
MrBlueSky, This is a good illustration of the hypothesis of evolution!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
).
Despite being created in MSPaint, it really is a good illustration, although one must also imagine a similar scenario in many, many, many more branches. It's best to simplify it like this, though, IMO.
