Why aren't humans living underwater? Seriously? Why would an ancient species that adapted to land and split from it's aquatic brethren evolve in anywhere close to the same way that the ones that stayed aquatic? The environment is utterly different and we are talking 100s of millions of years. Why would even aquatic placental mammals evolve to look anything like terrestrial placental mammals?
And when you say "choose" to evolve that tells me that either you have a complete lack of understanding of evolution or else you are just being an asshole. I totally understand confusion about some of the details on things like natural selection, precise definitions of the term species, all sorts of things. But I've gone out of my way to provide concrete definitions of speciation via natural selection and descent with modification and furthermore provided concrete examples of natural selection at work in modern humans. There isn't any "choosing" involved. This is actual science with probabilistic outcomes based on physical forces. If you would like to do some reading on the subject to get a basic primer, I'm happy to provide links to materials. Cheers, Judah On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 1:12 PM, GMoney <gm0n3...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Sam, why do you find it hard to believe all the variations that resulted? > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:03 PM, Sam <sammyc...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Always with the insults. > > > > If we all came from the sea why aren't humans also living under water? > And > > why would some life forms choose not to evolve and why are all humans so > > much alike. While I believe it's possible and maybe even probable we > could > > have all come from the same microbial life form, I don't think science > has > > proven it. It's just hard to believe all the variations that resulted. > Even > > if there were many original microbial life forms, it's still not proven > > science and a lot to take in. I can understand why the masses might be > > doubtful. > > > > . > > > > > > On Fri, Jan 3, 2014 at 3:00 PM, Judah McAuley <ju...@wiredotter.com> > > wrote: > > > > > > > > Yes, very odd that the success of single cell organisms would mean that > > > there would continue to be single cell organisms. I mean, look at the > > > success of 4 legs. Surely that would mean that 6 legs are totally > passe` > > > and doomed to extinction. > > > > > > For anyone that actually wants an answer to Sam's idiocy, the reason > why > > > there are still single cell organisms is that single cell structures > > work. > > > A more complex (read "evolved") species that had, say, two cells could > > > still coexist beside the single cell organisms it evolved from. A new > > > species does not automatically have to compete/displace the existing > > > species. In fact, speciation usually occurs due to natural selection > > > involved with forces that would preclude such competition. Like, for > > > instance, a population of animals that colonize a new island in a rare > > > "founder" event and subsequently experience different selection forces > > and > > > evolve differently than the ancestor species which is still happily > doing > > > it's existence thing and evolution thing back on the home range. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Judah > > > > > > > > > > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:369119 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
