My question of the thoery of Evolution?

Question

I am someone who believes in the concept of evolution, not creationism. But, there is one fact of evolution which has always made me wonder something, and has made me think that there's a different way we came to be, other than what we're looking at today.

I will simply say this, and please discuss why this does not happen, as it should, if evolution were to be true:

Why is there not any in between, between our closest animal relatives, and human kind?




Note, please leave creationism ideas and theories out of this question.

Answer 1

I don't know if anybody that is not a biologist can fully answer this. Is you want an in-depth explanation, I would suggest you try the biology section. Why you asked this in philosophy I don't know. But I will give it a shot anyway.

Various species diverged from each other long ago. The traits which are successful tend to be successful the greater quality you have them in. For example, if speed made for better fitness, it is very likely that more speed will make for make for more fitness. So those organisms which are only "halfway" between modern species would be less fit than modern species, and so less likely to survive. This is why you would not have a smooth continuum from slow species to fast species. Fast organisms would, in an environment where fastness is valuable, be more fit than slightly slower organisms.

Think of it this way - there are various niches to be filled. In a certain environment there may be a "fast predator" niche, a "strong herbivore" niche, and so on. I'm over-simplifying of course. Those organisms best suited to these niches will be the ones most likely to leave offspring. Organisms slightly less fast or less tough that compete for the same niche will be at a severe disadvantage, and if they compete for a different niche, it will be entirely different qualities which are valuable.

It is best to not think of evolution as a smooth and continuous progression. This is a common misrepresentation of the theory and leads to mistaken ideas like the assumption that we should see a smooth continuum of species.

P.S. I can say with great confidence that K8withaC has no idea what he is talking about. Scientific theories have a lot of proof behind them. That is why they are not merely hypotheses.

Answer 2

I'd say the biggest reason is in our communication that has opened the door for further human evolution where as other primates lack this, and cannot evolve further in those directions.

Somewhere along the line, we developed the ability to symbolize ideas, and use those symbols in place of objects. This opened a new door of group, an evolutionary growth you can see by looking at any history book. Without this, most animals are left with a very slow, physical evolution which they have very little control over. With the ability to control and manipulated ideas, we've been able to be most self selecting, and have been able to speed aspects of our evolutionary tracks (though not as much physically, but very much on a social and mental level). Thus we've excelled much further than anything else in this category because we first got that crucial initial trait of langustic symbolism. (this is different than langustic signals that animals use)

Answer 3

Because our closest relatives (the hominids) have evolved on a somewhat parallel path to ours. To say the we 'evolved from apes' (as many creationists try to say that evolutionary theory claims) is as silly (and as wrong) as saying that -you- evolved from -me-. If we went back far enough, I guarantee that you and I have at least one common ancester (probably several). But we might have to go back a couple hundred generations to find them.
We share common ancestry with the hominids because back about 2.5 to 3 million years ago, the species which was to become the common ancester of all of the apes (including homo erectus) started to scatter out. Some of them evolved evolved into the many species of apes. But, in two groups of them, Nature tried an experiment that took off wildly. It was called 'intelligence' and it allowed them to adapt to their environment much faster and better than any of the other creatures. We're not really sure why the Neanderthals died off, but the remaining group (whose name escapes me at the moment) were the ones who spread out and covered the planet.
And that's really all that evolution is about. You can see it in 40 or 50 generations of fruit flies. Animal breeders have been doing 'selective breeding' for thusands of years (although it wasn't until Mendeleeve that breeding became somewhat scientific).
I've simply never understood why the creationist view has ever been accepted by anyone. Animal breeding works and nobody denies that. The only difference is that certain traits are carefully selected and bred for over a small number of generations instead of having it happen due to natural selection over a million years or so.

Doug

Answer 4

There were. You aren't looking at the right place in history. If you look at the evolutionary tables of different hominid species, you will see that there are periods where different species exist and then the less successful one's die off.

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/species.html#timeline

This timeline is a good visual.

The comparison in the animal world is to observe the decline of multiple varieties of the same and related species and their decline.

If you were to map a similar timeline for animals, fish or plants from the endangered species list you will find the same pattern. Amphibians are an example of closely related species that are now in decline and soon, there may only be a single species. Tigers are already at this point.

Answer 5

Because evolution is a theory. That means there is no definate proof of it. If there were fossil records or species currently alive between humans and our 'closest animal realtives' then evolution would not be a theory, it would be proven. As it is, it's just a theory.

Answer 6

Actually, there are many forms of fossil evidence for species/subspecies leading up to Homo sp. However, if you are looking to close the gap even further, the species "midway" into Homo may have been isolated, and therefore provided few remains to be found. People are still looking for such evidence however, That is the drive behind the search for a "missing link".

Answer 7

Darwin mentioned that any two animals occupying the same ecological niche one will have an advantage, no matter how small the other will vanish in a geologic instant.

Answer 8

That doesn't make any sense. Evolution would work to branch them out into separate groups.

Answer 9

One explanation could be that anything too close to us was killed off as competition