O.k. this is a real question...I'm not trying to make a point or whatever, I really am wondering. So, IF evolution is true and we all evolved from little organizims or whatever, and we keep getting better and stuff then why are there still the "early" things around. Like little fish and sponges and things. Shouldn't they like, be dead because the strongest ones only survived? I hope this question makes sense, I'm not the best at putting words together, and please only answer if you have something real to say. Thanks.
2007-10-14 12:20:45 · 21 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
"and we keep getting better"
Evolution isn't progressive.
There is nothing in the science of evolution that says that "we keep getting better". Evolution simply says that populations of organisms adapt to their environments over time, across generations. It doesn't say that one organism is "better" than another, or that some things are "early" and others "late" or that an individual organism can turn into something else.
Like the person below, I also want to give you a star for being polite in your question. It is the rare evolution doubter who manages to ask a question like this without including some asinine ignorant insult. I genuinely appreciate it. Thank you.
2007-10-14 12:23:11 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 0⤋
"survival of the fittest" is a memorable slogan but it doesn't fully describe how evolution works. survival and reproduction are both important - it won't matter how survivable an organism is if it is unable to find a mate. other kinds of tradeoffs are also at work - physical strength is not the only factor in fitness. there is no absolute scale for fitness, fitness is relative. the comparison to be made is the fitness of variants within a population of the same species - comparison between species (species selection) is considered either irrelevant or far less important than selection upon individual variants. fitness also depends on the environment that the organism finds itself in - as someone pointed out above, a fish in water is more fit than a human in water.
2007-10-14 19:36:41 · answer #2 · answered by vorenhutz 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Evolution is not directed. There are multiple strategies that work. There are fish that still do well in the ocean and don't need legs. Legs evolved because some fish could use them in shallows and on the shore's edge. The legs gave those fish an advantage. For fish in deep water legs made no difference. Two populations emerged. The one population became two populations in different niches. As they are not competing for the same resources, both populations are fit.
2007-10-14 22:09:24 · answer #3 · answered by novangelis 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
When something has been around for along time like sponges it means they don't need to evolve anymore to survive. I'm sure the have evolved a little though.
As long as it can survive in it's enviroment it doesn't need to evolve, in fact the better suited to it's enviroment it is the less likely to have a beneficial mutation it has.
How long a 'long time' is is all very relative anyway
2007-10-14 19:26:55 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
First, evolution is a demonstrable fact. There is no IF.
If there is any debate it is how it happened ,not if it happened.
Evolution does not state anything about being better or even improved. Things evolve to fit their environment. That means two similar but different organisms can fill a specific environmental niche.
2007-10-14 19:31:32 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
The fish you see today *are* evolved. They are adapted to suit the environments they live in, when compared to their ancestors.
It's a common mistake people make when talking about evolution. We didn't evolve from apes, we had a common ancestor with apes. We then evolved from this common ancestor, and apes evolved separately. It's the same thing with fish.
2007-10-14 19:40:30 · answer #6 · answered by Dazcha 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The way one species evolves into another is that part of the original species is somehow isolated from the other part. That part of the species experiences different environmental conditions and therefore has to adapt differently.
Not all the individuals in a species are subjucated to the same conditions all the time.
2007-10-14 19:24:00 · answer #7 · answered by asourapple100 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Um, the little fish that you're referring to are not "early things" they are modern animals just like we are. The reason they are so different is because they evolved in different environments, where they don't need to "get better" to survive as a species.
Does that answer your question?
2007-10-14 19:42:10 · answer #8 · answered by JC Lounin 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
As someone has already pointed out, single cell viruses are amongst the most succesful organisms on the planet. So succesful that there was no point them evolving significantly differently en-masse. (Some did...and became...microbes, some of which are also still doing rather well today. Some of those evolved into larger organism...and so on...)
2007-10-14 19:28:33 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Evolution only favors survival. If something is in a niche that works it will stay there until it doesn't work. It doesn't have a set end point or any other definition of "better." That is a very common misconception.
2007-10-14 19:25:31 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 8⤊ 1⤋