Evolution questions...??

Question

Hello! Got a few questions I'd like to ask for clarification purposes.
BTW! I'm not saying I'm a Creationist or an Evolutionist by asking these, mmkay? No drama please!

Well...

1.) Why didn't the original cells evolve into one super-species? How did the seperation happen?

2.) How did species evolve (into seperate species) if it is impossible to inter-breed between species?

3.) Where have all the bones of the hominids gone? Isn't there a bit more evidence? I also noticed that the hominids found do look like human and ape bones combined...heard there is some controversy over this...Thoughts?

4.) What is the one most solid piece of evidence for this theory? Micro-evolution does NOT count :D

Thanks! I really wanted to know after a class I had.

Woops! Wrong category...didn't look and just clicked next...Sorry!

Answer 1

Yep definitely wrong category, and there isn't enough room to answer all of these questions for you. A good study of evolution would help you tremendously.
Here's a good link:
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/

Also, try the latest find for australopithecus afarensis to show evidence of evolution. This baby's bones were fused together at death: http://www7.nationalgeographic.com/ngm/0611/feature6/index.html

Answer 2

1 - different environments. Each species evolves to fit where it lives.
2 - As above each species evolves to fit where it lives. WHat you get is a spread of different types that diverge more and more. Picture it as a big line stretching, eventually the line stretches far enough that those on the left can't breed with those on the right. Knock out the middle and you've got your two new species.
3 Wouldn't we love to know! The problem is:
- Very, very few bones get fossilised
- The early populations of hominids where pretty small
There are always HUGE rows amongst scientists about bones. There are some frauds - but don't worry these get exposed (by scientists! - the creationists have nothing on the scientists when it comes to a viscious debunking of a misinterpreted find!)
4 The single most solid piece of evidence is in the link (less than five minutes!) To my mind it's the "smoking gun". The full video is great and debunk ID piece by piece. But if you've only got five minutes and want "the goods" it's there - there is NO WAY we and the apes don;t share a common ancestor given that.


[edit] I don't think this is the "wrong category", if you want Creationist as well as Evolutionist points. For some reason the vast majority of scientists are evolutionists. *thinks* the people who have studied it tend to adopt evolution.........I wonder if that means anything :-) !!

Answer 3

!. The cells evolved by surviving what was around them, different stuff, different traits. The world didn't evolve from one single cell that accidently happened. It came from lots of "happy accidents" so there was always a separation.
2. The reason that similar species can no longer inter-breed is because their expressed DNA and the proteins and other stuff that is expressed is different so it doesn't always work exactly the same or by using exactly the same proteins etc.
3. The bones of most animals decay and are crushed and lend their minerals back to the earth. The few fossils that have survived are incredibly valuable, the bones of the people that have been buried and preserved in the last 100 years aren't all there. Many of those are gone now so it makes sense that the bones of ancient hominids are gone now too.
4. The most solid "piece" piece of evidence is the anatomy and physiology of all plants, animals, fungi etc. The things that are similar and don't need to be, the things that are different and don't need to be. Why do we have tailbones? Why do the bones in a dolphin's fin look like and are structurally the same as ours? Other questions like this and the answers just confirm the evolutionary process.

Answer 4

That's okay, we get this question all the time.

The original cells began diversifying through mutation. Whether it was random or directed is up for grabs.

Inter species evolution is the real sticking point between the two systems. We can get variations within a species. We have not seen variations that actually cross species lines.

The bones of most animals are destroyed within a decade or two of death. Fossils are truly uncommon, and can only occur under special circumstances. Personally, I think Neandertals are with us even today. I saw a reconstructed skull, and it looked a LOT like some short, stocky modern europeans I've seen.

The most solid evidence I have seen was at CosmicFingerprints. Not sure if it was .com or .org.

Answer 5

1. Because of environmental pressures.

2. Some different species can interbreed. Tigers and lions, horses and donkeys, etc. However, interbreeding has little to do with it. The species as a whole with tiny steps gradually evolves into another species.

3. We have plenty of bones, and if a controversy exists, it exists only with those who have an agenda in favor of religion. Do a search for Talk Origins, Creationist Claims Index and begin reading.

4. This is the most convincing as far as I am concerned - we can now compare the human genome to that of the chimp and see where two chromosomes in our ancestors fused when we split from them...

Here's a video (from a Christian) about that fusing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gs1zeWWIm5M

Answer 6

1) There is nothing that says the old has to die out. Just a new group fits some other niche a little better and you get a separation.

2) Slow transitional steps.

3) There are lots of bones contrary to what you have been hearing. Here is the big find from last season: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby.html

4) I'll list three.

The stratification of fossils give you an unarguable order of life's creation: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html

Transitional fossils - here is a list: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils

Mitochondrial DNA regressive studies. - This comes only from your mother and the only changes to it are through mutations. These mutations occur at a known rate, and converge world wide 150,000 years ago give or take. If Eve (6000 years ago) was the only female, it would be almost identical world wide. It is not. The flood gives a second bottleneck that matches the facts even less well.

Answer 7

1.) The planet is eclectic in weather, climate, terrain, etc. When a species evolves, it also adapts. Not all the species stayed put, so not all evolved the same way.
2.) It is not impossible to interbreed. Have you ever heard of a beefalo or perhaps a mule?
3.) I've been to the Smithsonian Natural History Museum and I can tell you it is not lacking in bones. One section has bones arranged in order from oldest to youngest. It is fascinating. If you are speaking of "the missing link", than you are correct in saying it has yet to be found.
4.) Fossil records.

I am not a scientist, just a believer in evolution. The earth is certainly more than 6,000 years old!

Answer 8

In your question, I think there's a common misconception about evolution- evolution does not have a determined outcome or try to obtain one ideal ending. Why don't fish start sprouting legs? Why should they if they can survive in the water just fine? Animals with legs aren't any better than fish, they're just more suited to their particular environment. Millions of years ago, fish did eventually evolve into creatures that had legs and eventually moved onto land. But that was a completely different environment- the creatures with legs had no competition from other creatures on land because they were the first ones to colonize it. Now, however, even if a fish did by chance start to evolve legs, it would face steep competition from other land animals which have been adapting to their environment for millions of years. A fish with legs would be at a vast disadvantage compared to them. As a side note, fish with lungs have been seen. They are called lungfish.

Answer 9

the answer to this question is for to complex to answer in a paragraph but to keep things short from what i understand evolution is not a great leap from a simple species to a complex living organisms. the earth is 4 billion years old, life on earth is 500 million years old, at the beginning organisms as today slowly evolved through slit mutation through generations. when a mutation an organism was born with aided in its probability of survival, it gave it a better chance to have a longer life and made it possible to pass on more of its genes to more offspring containing the mutation. those that had the genes would have a better chance of survival causing them to be come the majority in comparison to those who did not contain the mutation, those without the mutation would become smaller in population and eventually be out-competed by those with the mutated gene, in some cases causing an extinction of a sub species
these mutations continue until a species gradually spit into sub species and eventually after many generations they become a separate species all together.
the above answers Question 1 and cancels out Question 2

because Questions 3 and 4 is much more of a complex question to answer you should visit the national geographic page to get the answers to this, it will tell you all you need to know about the process of human evolution.

Answer 10

1) Basically, different environments. one type of cell living in acidic soil, for example, would not cope in alkili soil.

2) Interbreeding is not possible bwtween different species because the genetic material is too different, so the egg and sperm cells do not 'recognise' eachother.
Different species are made through the process of natural selection. Id google search that if i were you

3) the controversy is caused by religious fundamentalists refusing to admit they're founders were wronged and jumped to the wrong conclusion

4) Fossils are the primary evidence of evolution

Answer 11

1. The earth is huge. Enviornmental factors affect species developement. Pangaea.
2. species evolved due to enviornmental factors. Maybe a river ran between a population of rabbits. Now one side of the river has white rabbits and the other side might have black rabbits, because maybe that helps them survive better
3. They don't need them.
4. When you place an animal in a different enviornment, it changes.