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.
The people like Darwin who say that evolution comes as a result of survival of the fittest may be wrong and there may be some species who are NOT the fittest who survive.
Such species could survive in an area of less competition, or perhaps be better suited to a specific environment. Like a brown bear wouldn't do well in the arctic, while the polar bear wouldn't do well in California.
And the fossil record may show a line that connects all the dots, but evolving creatures branch out and may become multiple related species.
That's like you're doing genealogy and you just look at grandpa's kids, ignoring his sister's family which branches out with as much complexity.
You may be satisfied with just the chain of species leading directly to you, but there were many other branches along the way.
Didnt that happen with the mountain Gorillas? No one believed they existed until they were discovered in the 1980s.
No, nothing close. I don't know why you thought the mountain gorilla was discovered in 1980. They were discovered in 1902. There was no night vision, drones, trail cameras or anything else of any technology available today, yet they were discovered 120 years ago.
To find out more about our evolution is cool and we have been searching for the "missing Link" for ages now and never found him. The people like Darwin who say that evolution comes as a result of survival of the fittest may be wrong and there may be some species who are NOT the fittest who survive.
There is no "missing link" and no one's searching for one. Evolution is a network, not a tree or linear path leading toward "progress" like they mistakenly thought back in the 19th century. As Tallysmom says, we and the apes have a common ancestor - we're not descended from the apes.
Quote:
The people like Darwin who say that evolution comes as a result of survival of the fittest may be wrong and there may be some species who are NOT the fittest who survive.
If they survive in their environment, then by definition they're fit. Fitness is simply the measure of an organism's ability to make copies of itself in an environment. Change the environment, and the fitness changes.
There is no "missing link" and no one's searching for one. Evolution is a network, not a tree or linear path leading toward "progress" like they mistakenly thought back in the 19th century. As Tallysmom says, we and the apes have a common ancestor - we're not descended from the apes.
If they survive in their environment, then by definition they're fit. Fitness is simply the measure of an organism's ability to make copies of itself in an environment. Change the environment, and the fitness changes.
And, when we say we have a common ancestor, it is not just one. Unlike in genealogy where it is just one. Life doesn’t form in a vacuum. So we have a whole slew of common ancestors because there is a breeding pool of them and for some reason our common ancestors some of them went ape why isn’t some of them went human wise some of them probably went to something else that may have died out we don’t know.
Sorry for me being very very literal, but it is something that I have to do for someone who takes everything very literally now.
And, when we say we have a common ancestor, it is not just one. Unlike in genealogy where it is just one. Life doesn’t form in a vacuum. So we have a whole slew of common ancestors because there is a breeding pool of them and for some reason our common ancestors some of them went ape why isn’t some of them went human wise some of them probably went to something else that may have died out we don’t know.
Plus we know now there were multiple exits from Africa, and people returning to Africa carrying Neanderthal genes with them. We outcompeted the Neanderthals, the return of the ice age had a negative effect on them, and their remnants live on in our gene as well as those of our Eastern cousins, the Denisovans. You have species that are inter-fertile mating with each other -- and over a timespan that is hard to get one's head around. Which is why creationists have a hard time understanding where "new types" come from -- it's the enormity of time involved in the process, countless tiny changes over that enormity, a few adding to fitness, most of them detrimental.
Plus we know now there were multiple exits from Africa, and people returning to Africa carrying Neanderthal genes with them. We outcompeted the Neanderthals, the return of the ice age had a negative effect on them, and their remnants live on in our gene as well as those of our Eastern cousins, the Denisovans. You have species that are inter-fertile mating with each other -- and over a timespan that is hard to get one's head around. Which is why creationists have a hard time understanding where "new types" come from -- it's the enormity of time involved in the process, countless tiny changes over that enormity, a few adding to fitness, most of them detrimental.
Actually, one of the most interesting things about DNA research is the fact that Neanderthal is found everywhere in the world, except Africa. So we all come from Africa, moved out, changed in to Neanderthals changed some more and the whole thing is kind of fun.
And because I went to look for this because I just knew this fact as an absolute FACT, I discovered that they used to think that but they don’t think that anymore.
I’ve been hit with that kind of thing a few times this past month. Up to the fact that when I was started on Levoxyl so many years ago I was told I had to stay on Levoxyl forever because you couldn’t change to Synthroid because there would be problems and apparently that isn’t true anymore. Used to be true, not true anymore. That’s kind of why we all have to be open to change.
She also said she knew people that had encountered Sasquatch, that had NO reason to lie about it...
On the other hand, you and others on here do not consider that, in your opinion, someone is always out to make money for themselves or they are misidentifying a known animal, 'someones credibility' is not a factor to you all.
No, she said that she had talked to people who said they had seen a large monkey without a tail. Not the same thing at all.
P.S. She said it could be a spirit animal. This is what Native Americans say about BF. This could explain why no remains have ever been found. (Goodall points that out, too.)
So, her statements are kind of all over the place, and are not in any one "camp".
She said "Maybe it’s a spiritual creature." No reference to Indian beliefs. In fact, I don't know what she is saying when she says that. People are reporting seeing some kind of spirit? There are animals with spiritual beliefs that lead them to dispose of remains in a way that they have never been discovered? Her statement is so vague that I find it hard to interpret.
Still, my point is that it's irrational to believe in a proposition without sufficient evidence. The combination of a lack of any physical evidence, the inherent unreliability of eyewitness testimony, the bias demonstrated by people who make the claim that these animals exist, and the established facts of faked evidence all make me doubt any supposed evidence that has been put forward.
It doesn't make me assert for a fact that it's impossible that such a creature exists, but enough to make me discount it as a serious likelihood.
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.