English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

I mean sure we evolved from apes or what have you but it was a slow process are apes not evolving still losing theyre fur maybe, i dunno it just seems to me there should be a middle man, a process going on as opposed to here's a monkey heres a man over time one became the other. same with everything else i mean why isnt there a fish which keeps trying to breath air, i realise these things take millions of years but, millions of years have passed. i always thought the same about coal, why is it running out i it not being made constantly, there was a millions years ago now...and now...and now so it should be getting made all the time, the same applies to this i feel there should be weird walking on two legs amphibians. anyone able to shed any light on this?

2007-06-15 06:21:54 · 10 answers · asked by ugoindownsaka 1 in Science & Mathematics Biology

10 answers

Evolution is not a constant, automatic process. Species that find themselves well suited to their environment will tend _not_ to change much over time, while isolated populations in fringe environments where the conditions are not ideal will adapt rapidly to their new home, eventually developing into a new species once they become different enough that they can no longer reliably interbreed with their original species.

That's why we still have apes (and sharks, and birds, and ocelots, and squid, and so on ad nauseum) - because they are living in a comfortable environment, and have no reason to change. Wheras our ancestors (and each and every one of theirs) found themselves in a situation where they needed to adapt to exploit new environmental niches when their current niches were no longer available.

2007-06-15 06:37:12 · answer #1 · answered by stmichaeldet 5 · 3 0

There are several living fossil links still in existence the lungfish mentioned, the walking catfish, the duckbill platypus (and egg laying mammal only barely outta reptiles) the Okapi a link between the giraffe and antelope. But recall NOTHING evolves just to evolve on. Fish do not developed the ability to breath air just to evolve in amphibians - they did it to survive drought & poor water. Its easy to look at a fossel record and say "look this is the first step toward exploiting the land" when you HAVE land dwellers but hard to say what is around NOW that will later develope into something far beyond that. Who knows someday some future race may look at bald men and say look the first link to deloping proper photosynthisis!

2007-06-15 06:52:27 · answer #2 · answered by ragapple 7 · 0 0

Well according to evolution we all came from the sea. We are what are known as advanced tetrapods. There are some fish that can breathe air. What we are seing in a lifetime is like a 10th of a second in evolutionary time. So we really dont get to see changes. As far as coal goes, no one was using coal until recently (evolutionaryly speaking). Thus the coal defecit. And in remote parts of the world people talk about seeing strange animals that no one can explain. IE Sasquatch, Yeti, abomidable snowman, etc. One neat thing we are catching now in our life times is science has discovered a group of chimps that are using rudimentary tools. rocks to break open nuts that are too hard for their teeth, also using long sticks to check depths of local lakes, etc etc. Evlolution is survival of the fittest, those that can adapt and change for the times survive those who dont become extinct. Check out a book about chiclids a breed of fish that is amazing to study their evolution. Cheers

2007-06-15 06:33:18 · answer #3 · answered by broadybruce 3 · 0 0

Apes and humans are still evolving. The "half-breeds" evolved, that is why they aren't around today. Also, we didn't evolve from apes, we share a common ancestor. So from that common ancestor, many species evolved. And there are plenty of transitional species seen in the fossil record.

As far as fish breathing air, it is called an amphibian. Also, whales and dolphins work for that.

2007-06-15 06:29:00 · answer #4 · answered by Take it from Toby 7 · 0 0

Lungfish are freshwater fish belonging to the order Dipnoi. Lungfish are best-known for retaining characteristics primitive within the Osteichthyes, including the ability to breathe air, and structures primitive within Sarcopterygii, including the presence of lobed fins with a well-developed internal skeleton. Today, they live only in Africa, South America, and Australia. While vicariance would suggest this represents an ancient distribution limited to the Mesozoic supercontinent Gondwana, the fossil record suggests that advanced lungfish had a cosmopolitan freshwater distribution and that the current distribution of modern lungfish species reflects extinction of many lineages following the breakup of both Pangea and subsequently Gondwana and Laurasia.

2007-06-15 06:26:17 · answer #5 · answered by DanE 7 · 0 0

Evolution only stops for a species when it becomes extinct. Otherwise evolution and natural selection are ongoing processes. Often evolutionary processes happen on time scales that are beyond our observation, but not always. just one case, river salmon introduced into Lake Washington evolved a different body shape that was better adapted to still water within 80 years.

2007-06-15 07:53:02 · answer #6 · answered by Dendronbat Crocoduck 6 · 1 2

good question.

evolution is out of necessity. since apes live in the jungle they have not changed their environment so they do no evelove. humans on the other hand started to evolve when the rainforest recedded and they ended up on the savannah. they had to adapt and started to evolve.

neadertal was an intermediate. the thing is that homo sapiens out competed all intermediated..

but i agree with the first response.. bush might be and example of a half breed. then again that is an insult to apes.

2007-06-15 06:31:10 · answer #7 · answered by shea 5 · 0 2

You mean Tony Blair and George Bush?

2007-06-15 06:26:09 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1 1

Rosie O'Donnell

.

2007-06-15 06:31:53 · answer #9 · answered by Hello Kitty 7 · 0 3

This is honestly a big problem for evolution. The truth is, there isn't even solid fossil evidence of 'transitional forms.' Kinda weird that so many people would believe in a 'theory' that has such a big problem...

2007-06-15 06:26:39 · answer #10 · answered by Kittylover 2 · 1 8

fedest.com, questions and answers