Can you explain this evolutionary conundrum?
543003
Heh heh. Clever question. I always like to see a lateral thinker. The answer lies in appreciating that adaptation occurs for the population, not the individual.\n\nAdaptation in the sense that you refer to in your question is a population process. Imagine we have a population of one hundred animals, 50 are fast and 50 are slow. The slow ones get eaten. The slow individuals don't adapt because they are dead, and the fast individuals don't adapt because they don't need to.\n\nBut the population has adapted. We started with a population consisting of even numbers of fast and slow animals. Now we have a population consisting of 100% fast animals. That is because all the slow animals are dead.\n\n\nAnd because it is the population that has adapted it doesn't matter whether maladapted individuals survive. All that matters is  that sufficiently adapted individuals survive and produce offspring.\n\nThis is precisely what happens in the real world. There was a time when jack rabbits as a population were much slower than they are today. As all the slow animals succumbed to coyotes only the fast animals survived to produce young. As a result the jack rabbit population became faster and faster with every generation even though individuals rabbits were stuck with the genes they were born with.
154455
Huh? Could you please explain?
886021
Evolution and the means to survive.
518208
Without dissent change/progress does not occur. Evolving is not always a peaceful process, just ask the dinosaurs.
458284
Monkeys now aren't the same as the monkeys we evolved from, our common ancestor. They didn't evolve in the same way because of different accidents in the genetic replication, and because they are well adapted enough to reproduce in their environment... Natural selection does *not* lead to the optimal genetic material, simply to one that is *good enough* to reproduce better than the competition.
719573
We could evolve into idiots, even by evolutionary theory- All the theory really states is that any trait which increases the number of viable offspring will become predominant.  If, for example, it turns out that high intelligence somehow reduces the number of offspring (which may very well be true, for any number of reasons including social adaptability in highly intelligent people), and that given the mass movement of people today that all highly intelligent people marry each other, then we would have a situation where slowly those genes were lost.  You dont need a glitch in evolutionary theory to see that as a possibility.
918371
c is the right answer.\n\nA makes no sense in relation to the question\nB natural selection has a bit of randomness in it of course but is basically not random. I mean, the fastest critter in the herd may have had an unlucky day and so he will not procreate, oops. But otherwise, the slowest are intentionally selected by the lion and that is never random.\nD just isn't true, plenty of proof there.
653816
Evolution is a theory.
801430
There Sach's organ has a stack of electroplaques, which acts somewhat as a stack of battery plates. There evolutionary history is not know to me.
389680
Hey, iloveicecream103, why don't YOU read a book about science, then talk to us about Genesis, if you still can.\n\nFossil layers show change over time.  The lowest layers have species the least like modern species.  As you progress up the fossil record, each layer is consistently more and more like modern organisms.  Creationists have no explanation for this.  They haven't even bothered trying.\n\nComing up the fossil record, you see forms changing over time.  Clams are preceded by animals like clams, but with their shells united.  Before mammals, mammal-like reptiles.  Before reptiles, reptile-like amphibians.  Before amphibians, amphibian-like fish.  Creationists have no explanation for this either, but they have made a few wasted efforts.\n\nThe transitions evolution expects occur.  Creationists can pretend they aren't *really* transitions, they just *look* like transitions, but that's just like a child yelling "DOES NOT" to win an argument.\n\nCreationists especially need to pretend that no transitions between humans and other apes appear.  They claim that all fossils are obviously human or obviously ape.  However, if you examine the claims of multiple creationists, you'll find they disagree on which are "obviously" which.  If it was so freaking obvious, shouldn't they be able to agree?  At least a little?  Here's a chart:\n\nhttp://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/homs/compare.html\n\nThe only thing obvious about it is that the skulls obviously cannot be considered one or the other and must be seen as transitions by any open-minded person.\n\nThe transitions that evolution doesn't want do not occur.  At no point in the fossil record do we find mammal/birds.  At no point do we find any direct transitions between amphibians and mammals.  We don't find any cat/humans either.  Any of these things, if discovered, would scrap evolutionary theory overnight.  Creationists have yet to explain why God made only species that look like they could have evolved.\n\nEven without any notion of progress or change over time in the fossil record, it's sorting would be an embarrassment to creationists.\n\nScientists respect the fossil record and accept it on its own terms.  If oak trees appear on top of tree ferns, oak trees came after tree ferns.  Creationists need to impose explanations to account for their claims that everything existed together at once, but these do not flow naturally from the evidence.  For instance, they have no explanation for why oak trees are found above tree ferns.\n\nCreationists have three explanations for fossil sorting, none of them works at all.\n\n1.  They like to claim that fossils are sorted by which species could outrun the rising floodwaters (they blame Noah’s' flood for everything they can't explain).  This would mean that moles and sloths can run faster than velociraptors, Oak trees and mangroves can run faster than velociraptors as well.  Velociraptors run at the same speed as tree ferns.  It is also useless for explaining why ichthyosaurs and dolphins are never found together.\n\n2.  They claim that different species occur in different ecological zones, thus would form in different layers.  This fails again.  Mangroves are found in the lowest ecological zone of any flowering plants, but the highest levels of the fossil record.  Oak trees are found high with mangroves, instead of low in the plains.  Tree ferns should be found with oaks.  Moles should be beneath velociraptors again, and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found with dolphins.\n\n3.  They claim that the mechanical action of the flood should sort things.  Well, it should.  Too bad such sorting doesn't look at all like what is seen.  Mangroves sink, for example.  So do waterlogged oaks.  Moles are bullet shaped and would sink faster than light-boned velociraptors.  Dolphins and ichthyosaurs should, again, be found together.\n\nCreationists have lots of explanations for fossil so
1082844
A void evolves into a God through intense illogical reasoning.  This evolution could not occur without man because man is the only animal capable of being illogical.
233462
The Egg, and a tad of evolution
92864
Please, give me an example on how it disagrees. Thanks! If we evolved from apes, why are apes still in exsistance?
487098
There is some of that.  However, there is just as much bashing of various faiths with no knowledge, too.\n\nThere is certainly no conclusive evidence of evolution.  Not even close.  Evolution has never been able to explain how supposedly "closely related" species have completely different numbers of chromosomes.  When we mate a tiger and a lion, or a horse and a donkey, which DO have the same number of chromosomes, and ARE "closely related" enough to mate, we get sterile offspring.  How in the heck did apes, chimps, and man all come from one ancestor?\n\nI've done a bit of research, and I still reject evolution.  However, I am smart enough to understand that there ARE real reasons why so many scientists have come to this conclusion, and try to always be fair to both sides.
44144
Evolution of reproduction. Nature finds its way.
765632
There will be some ignorant evolutionists here that will give you crap answers about this true statement, keep it up brother. \n\nCreationist 10 - 0 Evolutionists
311295
I completely see your point.  It seems like you have really put some thought into this, and you seem very intelligent.  If everyone in the world survives, no evolution will take place for sure.  So at the very least we will be at a standstill.  You sound like someone with good genes though, we should meet and maybe we could improve the gene pool together.