Alright, I get the point that it hasn’t just stopped.
I do think I remember my science teacher telling me that the reason appendix come out is because there is no use for them any more, and that is a form of evolution.
I will look through the links when I don’t have my heathens running around distracting me later tonight.
I mean I am not slow or anything, but it was just something I never thought of untill he brought it up the other night.
Honestly I never have thought about it. I know it can turn into a great science religion debate, but I always looked at it as were here and that is what is important. I know, not very realistic but hey sometimes that’s me.
Thank you again, I know I will get alot of insight and facts from those links.
Oh my god I totally hadn’t thought of that. My username actually doesn’t derive from Rocky and Bullwinkle, but I really like that show so I’m tickled when people think of it.
Well that is a serious compliment.
Yeah, parallel evolution is another thing that totally fascinates me. As a kid I was quite convinced that mammals had evolved - by pure coincidence - on land and sea simultaneously. That is, that fish had evolved lungs and warm blood and turned into dolphins, while reptiles turned into mammals in a complete separate process. I was surprised at a very different form of parallel evolution - that mammals at some point in history (uhh … the Cenozoic?) took to the water and began evolving in shape. The shape of a modern cetacean is fish-like enough that they are often mistaken for fish.
I mean, is thinking that a porpoise is a fish really a “stupid mistake”? No, it’s a very smart mistake. Fish and porpoises look similar for a very good reason. Birds and bats likewize. Even look at a dragonfly - the most bird-like of insects in its flight patterns - and you can see a form analagous to the bird. The wings attach to the thorax at the center of mass, which is well forward of the center of lenght, with a long tail, and eyes on the front, right above mouth parts, etc.
I didn’t read the whole thread, so maybe somebody already addressed this. The OP contains a misperception of evolution. Humans did not evolve from apes or bacteria. Humans, apes, and bacteria all share a common ancestor. An analogy to language always proves helpful.
English is a Germanic language. English and German share a common ancestor. This common ancestor is probably more similar to German than it is to English. But it is totally inappropriate to say that “English evolved from German.” Likewise, the common ancestor of dogs and e. coli was much more similar to e. coli than it is to dogs. But dogs did not evolve from e. coli; e. coli bacteria and dogs have a common ancestor.
So, to answer the question of why we no longer see humans coming out of the ocean, ask yourself why German isn’t evolving into English. The answer is that German and English are two separate, distinct languages, both of which have been evolving for the same length of time. They will continue to evolve, but in novel ways. German may some day give rise to another language (like it did with Yiddish), but there’s no reason to think that it will turn into English like it did 2-3000 years ago.
I think Cecil pointed out (uh-oh, I had better review the archives!) the interesting fact that the ability to fly evolved separately more than once (bats, birds, insects)…i.e., there wasn’t one common flying ancestor.
This is commonly asserted, but never explained. I agree that humans did not evolve from modern apes, but why can’t we call the (most recent) common ancestor to humans and modern apes an ape? Does the term “ape” really only include species that exist today? I was under the impression it meant “primate without a tail”, which is not a time-specific definition (unless “primate” is, which would cause more problems).
Likewise with bacteria, only more so. One-celled organisms that lack nuclei are bacteria, by definition. Do you agree that humans evolved ultimately from one-celled organisms? Do you agree those organisms lacked nuclei before they had them? If so, then humans are evolved from bacteria.
“A rose by any other name…”
But seriously, we can call it what we want, but it’s all, as Douglas Adams might say, different ways of looking at the whole general mish mash.
I’m no biologist, but it seems like “ape” is a general term used to describe a modern type of animal. I’ve heard “ape-like ancestor” used to describe the missing link for humans and modern apes.
As far as bacteria go, I suspect the definition is a bit longer than that. My handy-dandy Dictionary of Biology has a whole page dedicated to defining “bacteria”. A lot of the definition is a description of morphology, etc., but I suspect that the common one-celled ancestor of all us multicellular eukaryotes would be far simpler than modern-day bacteria.
So maybe again, our language just lacks the term for it. Maybe it was a “bacteria-like ancestor”. But I’m neither a biologist nor a linguist to be sure.
So the next question is, if we had a common ancestor that was simpler than modern bacteria, was there a “link” in the chain that was on a level with bacteria? Kind of like saying “we had a common ancestor that was simpler than any known ape” or “we had a common ancestor without opposable thumbs.” Ok, but since that ancestor, what else have we had in common, unless the lines broke off at the level of single celled organisms (which would imply a remarkable abundance of parallel evolution).
I guess I’m looking at the idea as “all roads lead to Rome” but the question is, in coming FROM Rome, where did subspecies A take the right fork and subspecies B take the left?
You seem to want to view the phenomenon of evolution as some sort of individual improvement program for living things. Each bacteria out there striving to become Leonardo da Vinci, (or Dicaprio, depending on taste) over the eons. There are a lot of errors in that view.
Most importantly, there is no effort, by any living thing to evolve. Individuals survive long enough to procreate, or die first. That is the entire role of the individual, in evolution. Homo Sapiens is not the goal, nor even the final result of evolution. Homo Sapiens is just one more variety of critter, striving to survive, and procreate. So far we are right up there in the top billion or so, species wise, as far as success goes. Beetles are still the clear winners as far as larger species go. Of course all these Johnny come lately post Cambrian big species are struggling for third place on any scale other than complexity.
Bacteria, molds, and the entire microscopic realm of life, including viruses, are way ahead in the evolution game. They have more members, more species, faster reproduction, higher survival rates, and far greater survivable mutation rates than anything as complex as a flatworm. They represent more bio-mass, too, and are ahead and gaining on the percentage of fixed carbon and nitrogen competition, as well. A week or two looking into a microscope will have you doubting our lead in the art and sculpture department as well. (Sorry, Leo.)
So, while you wait for your neighbors dog evolves enough to talk, there is also the distinct possibility that he (or more properly, his descendants) will end up evolving an ability to receive and manipulate radio signals instead. He could decide you aren’t intelligent enough to support the necessary skills for language.
I have to disagree… Just where are you getting your figures anyway? I happen to know that I am personally trying to evolve, even as I type this. Oh, wait… Nope, just a little gas.
Most laypeople don’t realize that not all prokaryotes are Bacteria. That’s with a capital B. Prokaryotes are divided into two domains, Bacteria and Archaea. Along with Eukarya (that would be us), these domains are the most basic division of life. The differences between Bacteria and Archaea are probably a bit too technical to get into here (ether-linked vs ester-linked membrane phospholipids, for instance). But it appears likely that hyperthermophilic Archaea are the currently living things closest to the original life. It appears that the first living things were Archaeal-like. Bacteria then split away, and then Eucarya split off of the Archaeal line.
No, smeghead, I’m actually quite pleased with this thread. I did think that all prokaryotes were bacteria, and you set me straight. Thank you very much. If I meet an archea on the street I will not insult him by calling a bacterium.
