I do not believe in macro evolution. I believe that the first human came into being when God decreed that it would be so. Shortly after, He created a mate. That makes you and me cousins, probably really far removed, but cousins nonetheless.
2007-05-01 01:32:38
·
answer #1
·
answered by cmw 6
·
0⤊
3⤋
You don't seem to understand evolution. A human doesn't just appear from another species. Over time, the small changes within a species add up to a new species. So every generation is still the same species as the previous, but an individual from a species is not the same species as an individual from 50,000 years ago. A Ring Species is an example that you can probably use as an example.
2007-05-01 11:10:44
·
answer #2
·
answered by Take it from Toby 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
Humans are not an offshoot of a completely different species. They are the result of gradual change from a very similar species. It is unlikely that one generation was human while the previous generation before was not. Isolated subpopulations of a genetically diverse population is the most likely process.
2007-05-01 08:38:04
·
answer #3
·
answered by novangelis 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
I think what you are asking is this: according to evolution theory, at some point a youngster was born that was incapable of breeding with others, as it differs enough genetically that it is unable to create viable offspring.
What you are overlooking is that the close kin of this individual also carries the genetic potential to produce such offspring. Think of the genes that give rise to physical characteristics in a specific family such that members of that family share one or more specific characteristics.
There may well have been isolated instances of individuals unable to breed with others. But given a thousand years (or ten thousand years) and 50 (500) to 100 (1000) generations, it is more likely that two or more such individuals will be born who can breed together and thus be the founders of a new species.
Evolution theory emphasizes the idea of small, isolated groups of creatures as the seeds for a new species. Small groups are more susceptible to in-breeding, thus reinforcing the genes that will be the hallmark of the new species.
There may have been many 'adams' with no 'eve', many 'eves' with no 'adam', but given sufficient time, there will come a day when there is both an 'adam' and an 'eve' who, due to their similarities, will breed and create children who retain the unique genetic characteristics of their parents and can pass them on to their offspring.
2007-05-01 12:03:39
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Under the similar condition, species evolved about the same rate in a macro scale so there would be a number of other human in the same area.
2007-05-01 08:36:39
·
answer #5
·
answered by ShanShui 4
·
1⤊
0⤋
Change is change. There is no such thing as macro evolution, only evolution.
Here meet your ancestor: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/09/060920-lucys-baby.html
Any valid theory has to account for the millions of fossils that are in the record. The fossils are sorted in nice neat layers that start simple and get more complex and more like todays animals. It happened. You can whine about this detail, of that one all day but unless you have another explanation for how the fossils got sorted in the geology the way they are, you are just blowing smoke. http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/fossils/succession.html
Evolution could fail with every new find. There are thousands every summer and 150 years later it still stands.
2007-05-01 08:35:21
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
You've got the wrong idea about what evolution is. One species does not give birth to an entirely different species. It is an extremely slow process. Perhaps all there is is a very long series of micro changes.
There is no wall between micro evolution and macro.
You can email me elevensixone@yahoo.com with questions.
2007-05-01 08:32:19
·
answer #7
·
answered by Eleventy 6
·
4⤊
0⤋
There were 6 species of humans to start with. Only one could survive.
2007-05-01 08:33:31
·
answer #8
·
answered by dipakrashmi 4
·
0⤊
0⤋
You have an incorrect understanding of human evolution.
2007-05-01 09:03:30
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
Again you are lost. Of course, you might read a book and learn a little about evolution, but then that is not really your goal, is it.
2007-05-01 12:41:25
·
answer #10
·
answered by Fred 7
·
0⤊
0⤋