How does evolutionary theory explain this?

Question

I am not a creationist but I do agree that there are so many things Evolution does not seem to explain, such as...

From a recent question (in Food) about lack of fresh-caught northwestern Atlantic shrimp at my local supermarkets I learned among other things that this species, pandalus borealis, is found in scattered ("patchy" was the word used in one report on the Internet written for Canadian Government Fisheries) and non-contiguous and not migratory to each other populations located hundreds of kilometres from each other from south of Maine to the Arctic. Under evolutionary theory, like Darwin's differing finches on different Galapagos islands, should not the differing and separated shrimp populations evolved into different species? Why didn't they. How common is this (species that were broken up geographically millions of years ago that remain the same species in the separated populations)?

Answer 1

Once we have made the consideration of a Supreme Being, all problems solved.

Answer 2

They might not necessarily have evolved into separate species for several reasons:
1) They are still being moved around by currents and interbreeding
2) They might have especially short chromosomes (shorter chromosomes are less likely to mutate)
3) They might not have been separated very long
4) They might not have a need - for species to evolve, there is often a selective pressure that rewards members of the species with some advantageous mutations, while weeding out those with less advantageous mutations. If no mutations are more advantageous, then there is no reward for those members, and they will not procreate at a higher rate. Thus, there will be no significant change in gene penetration

Evolution does not say that animals HAVE to evolve, it merely explains that they DO, and WHY. There's a difference.

Learn what a scientific theory is below (this is mostly for the other answerers):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_theory#Science

Answer 3

It's not unknown in both time and space.

There are examples of animals (and plants) that have remained virtually unchanged over millions of years. A lot depends on how much advantage (or disadvantage) a mutation gives.

What you can also get are races (rather than speciation). The groups are only very subtly different, but not different enough for classification purposes. (An example of this is mice living in cold stores growing thicker fur)

You would have to see if this species shows signs of having races. Another couple of thing to consider are:
how recent is this splitting of populations?
what is the breeding strategy? If eggs or larvae drift a long way, it could be that they are only found living in areas that are suitable, but the populations still mix.

Answer 4

When these government fishery reports refer to shrimp found in "patchy" populations, they are referring to populations big enough to fish. The waters in between these "patches" may not be conducive for the shrimp flourishing in huge quantities (as needed for fishing), but that doesn't mean these intervening waters are absolutely devoid of any shrimp surviving at all.

In other words, it is not true that these waters are truly non-contiguous. There are currents between all patches of water, the patches grow and contract and come into contact with each other, storms lift and blow water full of eggs and even small individuals hundreds of miles (perhaps even to land-locked lakes), etc. Eggs can survive for long periods in awful conditions with no food. (Have you ever ordered "sea monkeys"? These are brine-shrimp eggs that come in a dried up pouch.)

So bottom line, these populations of shrimp in the North Atlantic are not nearly as "separated" as finches trapped on an island. There may be constant flow of currents between them ... or perhaps the flow is broken and reestablished every year, or every five years, or every ten. Or after every major storm that stirs up the North Atlantic like a big blender, those populations will not be nearly as "patchy."

As long as they are not *completely* genetically isolated, there will be genetic flow between all the populations, and they will continue to evolve together as one enormous species.

Answer 5

Well, actually, this evolution millions and billions of yeas ago crap, never really happened. If you pick up a King James Version of a Bible, you'll find, in the very beginning, how all the earth happened and how God did these wonderful things. I mean, how do explain such wonders as the Grand Canyon and the great red wood trees if not by the Hand of the Divine Being? It's just common sense to me, a devout fundamentalist Bible believing Christian. If you don't believe that, than I won't press it on you. It's just my belief; a true belief.

Answer 6

There would only be speciation if the separated environments selected for different traits. Even if you separate the members of the same species, there has to be some kind of selective pressure to cause speciation.

Answer 7

Species only differentiate if there is an outside source acting upon them, like the environment. If they are separated, but in environments where all things other than location are equal, they will tend not to change.

Answer 8

I can't give you an answer to this becuase there isnt any. And as far as evolution goes there are more then 100 theories of it out there. Evolution has no true basis is all a theory that can never be solved. Besides Dawrwin recanted everyone of his theories on his deathbed.

Answer 9

Well for one, there isn't a good way to tell how long they've been split up. For all we know, they could have been transplanted by humans at some point to increase their numbers.

Answer 10

darwin's thery isn't perfect keep that in mind with advance in techlongy and science the gaps are being filled in and extending his theroy

it is after all a theroy one that seems more likely then other resons