Ah. Gotcha ya.
[aside] It’d be interesting to get a time machine to test the hypothesis that some species of shark or cockroach have remained the same by bringing some back and seeing if they could produce viable offspring with their modern equivalents. I suspect we’d be back at looking like the same species does not make two things the same species. And I suspect some of you could find something better to do with a time machine. [/aside]
Extinction is not as black and white as simply “failing to adapt”. Only the “fair game” theory mentioned in the link would apply to your statements. Just as you can’t blame every soldier who gets killed in battle for not heeding his training, you can’t chalk every extinct species up to “bad genes”. There are some things you just can’t adapt to, no matter how much time you’re given, or how superior your gene pool might be.
Natural selection is a very powerful tool when it comes to shaping life on Earth. But it’s not the only tool in the box, and not every evolutionary event can be reduced to “selection for” or “selection against”. This is as big a misconception as the old “such-and-such group aren’t evolving anymore” canard.
Yeah. You try getting a couple of great whites from different epochs to mate.
Never. Again.
Your point being?
I’m perfectly aware that only populations evolve, but one may refer to a given population as dead–though one would be more technically correct to call it extinct, I admit. But that’s just quibbling.
Methinks we’ve gone too long without a good creation vs. evolution debate on this board…the evolutionists have taken to arguing with each other 
When the evolutionist talks about the weeding out of the weaker species - I’m assuming it means that eventually the species we “evolve” from will no longer exist as the perfected species will triumph? right?
If that is true - then how can we coexist with the apes the evolutionist says we came from? Wouldn’t the ape disapear through the process of natural selection? or am I still not getting it?
No we haven’t.
I know this may be splitting hairs but when do we draw the line and say homosapiens with the knowledge of good and evil appeared on earth?
I don’t see how any of those mechanism could be considered anything but different instances of luck (ie, random chance happenings).
Emphasis added. I never said that it could be. I just said that “an asteroid hits earth when you’re alive” is just as much a matter of luck as “the earth happens to cool by 4 degrees while your species is alive”. Same with any other event.
That’s a good question, actually. And the answer would be no.
One possibility is that evolution happens in populations, not to individuals. But populations get seperated all the time. Hence, you’d have two identical populations. But over time, they’d grow more divergent.
There are probably other possibilities. Anyone want to field this one?
Humans didn’t evolve from any existing ape species. Humans and modern apes evolved from common ancestors that no longer exist.
Knowledge of good and evil? 
It seems that modern consciousness evolved – uh, 150,000 years ago?
I have no clue.
Which of the modern apes to evolutionists say we come from?
The problem here is that evolutionists aren’t claiming we’re descended from chimps, gorillas, bonobos, or the primates that currently exist, but that us as well as the current other primates are all descended from some common source - a more “primitive” primate that does no longer exist.
That’s not to say however that a species from which another species has evolved has to die out. If a population of a species is seperated - so that it experiences different evolutionary pressures - one of those seperated groups can evolve in one way and the other another. And if one of those populations is exposed to no or little exolutionary pressure, then it will stay more similar. Sharks and armadillos, for example, aren’t all that different (comparitively) from their descendants.
It’s very difficult to. And we can’t even assign the knowledge of good and evil to homo sapiens; it’s possible homo neanderthal or even primates farther back than those two had such concepts.
“Which of the modern apes to evolutionists say we come from?”
I don’t know.
I’ve nothing to add to this thread, but well done.
Blast. That should have been “Homo neanderthalensis”. Bloody latin. 
Utterly, utterly wrong, actually.
Evolution isn’t about “weaker” and “stronger” species, ones “better” or “worse” ones. It’s about those species which are BEST ADAPTED TO THE ENVIRONMENT IN WHICH THEY FIND THEMSELVES. That can vary. Under one set of circumstances, being larger and stronger may be an advantage; under another set of circumstances (or the same circumstances, different niche) being smaller (and necessarily weaker) is of more use. Large animals require greater quantities of food than small ones, and when food resources are scarce are at a disadvantage. Also, smaller animals tend to have briefer life cycles, which means they have more generations in a given unit of time, which means that they can adapt more quickly.
You’re still not getting it. In the first place, humans didn’t evolve from apes; we share a common ANCESTOR with apes, in the same way my siblings and I share common ancestors. In the second place, strength is not the only virtue a species can have. As I mentioned above, being the biggest and strongest isn’t always an advantage; furthermore, the advantages of having a bigger brain, opposable thumbs, and language can easily outweigh it. Any healthy gorilla can devaste any healthy human in an arm wrestling match, or take anything it desires from the human if that human is bare-handed. But the human’s greater intelligence gives it the ability to create tools, or to use better strategy with its fellows than the gorilla can devise, to out-compete the gorilla in a thousand different ways.
Third, non-human apes ARE disappearing, largely because humans are encroaching on their territories–that is, out-competing them.
Since the Neandertal’s did not leave us any philosophy books, it would be hard to tell. Whenever a moral sense originated, it was surely long before writing, so we’ll never know.
As for your other question, if a species gets geographically isolated, perhaps by melting of an ice bridge, it is possible that one of the groups in a new environment will evolve into a new species adpated to that environment, while the other will stay more or less unchanged if the environment there does. In that case the parent and child species would exist at the same time. It is also possible that both branches speciate in different ways.
I’ll ask the question I always ask - please state, in a few sentences, what you think evolution says. That’s the only way we can tell if you object to evolution or a strawman. An example of a strawman is evolution claiming frogs become apes - it does not say that at all.