Evidences for evolution

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


Evolution cannot be seperated from adaptation, but one need not believe that all species come from the same creature to understand adaptation and a certain amount of evolution within species. There is a question of magnitude here on top of the assumption of developing complexity that I find unreasonable and certainly not proven.

The conflict between evolution and Christian creation is more a philosophical one, but the philosophy itself has a scientific basis in observation. But the poor science of evoution as the sole origin of species comes from the blind assumption that because we don't understand the formation of life that it must be something that rarely happens. Most likely it is something, like most chemical reactions, that has to happen, when certain materials come together under certain circumstances.

I imagine once life can be manufactured, that it will be quite obvious that it is perfectly natural for more than one type of creature to be created by that process. This is an entirely different objection that I have, completely apart from the assumption of evoutionary theorists that they know things of the past without having been there to observe them.



How?

1. No-one asserts that every living organism on earth came from one creature. That is a gross, yet sadly common misconception regarding the evolutionary history of life.

2. Please explain the explicit barrier that allows for adaptation within a species, but prevents the formation of a new species.

3. What is the question of magnitude? Specifically when dealing with a such a large time frame, changes of magnitude are unnecessary for speciation to occur.

4. What is the assumption of developing complexity that you find unreasonable. Nothing is ever proven in science, but there is evidence in the fossil record to support developing complexity as a result of accumulated adaptation.

5. The conflict between evolution and Creationism is not a philosophical one. As explained earlier it is one of Reason versus faith. Faith is not needed when you have evidence. Similarly, Reason is ignored when you have faith that holy scriptures are inerrant and literal.

6."But the poor science of evoution as the sole origin of species comes from the blind assumption that because we don't understand the formation of life that it must be something that rarely happens"

Wrong - evolution as the sole origin of species comes from direct observation and analysis if natural phenonema without the invoking of supernatural causes. It is inferred that the formation of life, in terms of probabilities, was something that was very likely to happen. There is no blind assumptions - they are tentative, yet highly supported inferences.

7. "Most likely it is something, like most chemical reactions, that has to happen, when certain materials come together under certain circumstances."

Bingo - got it in one.

8. We know, or at least are 99% sure of what happened in the past because nature, in all her wisdom, left behind some souvenirs. Unfortunately for creationists, God wasn't so generous.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


The Babble?

So there goes your credibility posting on a Christian forum, and so goes any illusion of you being the least bit objective. Also, the assumption that there is a God is no more dramatic than the assumption that there isn't one, especially given that God only means something very much like us only with more power, and significant historical evidence for the existence of the spritual.

Don't be a loon, please. The Babble is a pseudonym in New Zealand for The Bible, and has no derogatory intent. The Bible is fine book and a very good analysis of human ethics and values. However, it is not a Science text book.

I'm not saying that there isn't a God, I'm not saying that there is - scientifically speaking, I couldn't make a conclusion either way. However, I have very good scientific grounds to contest the scientific claims made by biblical literalists with regards to the origin of biodiversity. When these literalists invoke the bible, without any scientific evidence to back up their claims, that's when the debate surfaces. Pointing out [alleged] flaws with the Theory of Evolution does not automatically support Genesis as an alternative. No evidence exists for Genesis.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Ray K


Of course! Who is denying that? But there is a difference between assuming the existance of life similar to what we already know to exist (carbon-based life found on Earth) and suddenly the existence of an ALL-POWERFUL, ALL-KNOWING SUPERNATURAL creator that you call God. There is no analogy for that kind of life, so evidence of our existence is not evidence of God in the slightest.

We know we have consciousness, and we know we act on our will. You want me to pretend I don't know this? You want me to pretend that this isn't evidence of anything? That recorded history isn't evidence of anything? That your attitude, exemplified by your last two paragraphs, isn't highly prejudiced?

We have observed free will and inteligence, we know that either it came from the inanimate world, or else the inanimate world came from a design of some sort. We don't know which. Well, apparently you think you know, but I don't trust you. Furthermore, and I have to restate this for the benefit of everyone here, not everyone in the scientific community is as hostile to this as you are. It is understood by many that the debate is a result of a philosophical problem whose roots are much deeper than simple scientific process, and at which level the rationaistic views have every bit as much to answer for as revelational views.

You have absolutely no understanding of why there is a disagreement to begin with, so you vilify and pitch fits and repeat the same unfruitful arguments over and over.

You aren't even capable of having this discussion without degenerating repeatedly into emotionalistic attacks on Christianity in general. I've seen you do it and ignore the answers people give you, only to toss the same hateful comments on another thread, as if no one notices that you have no answer to the explanations given.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


Don't be a loon, please. The Babble is a pseudonym in New Zealand for The Bible, and has no derogatory intent.

Whatever.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


Whatever.

Settle petal!

I really don't mean any nasty intent at all - even my Evangelist twin brother calls it that. Cultural differences. I'm sorry if you were offended.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson



5. The conflict between evolution and Creationism is not a philosophical one. As explained earlier it is one of Reason versus faith. Faith is not needed when you have evidence. Similarly, Reason is ignored when you have faith that holy scriptures are inerrant and literal.

Bunk. The assumptions intrinsic to evolutionary theory have to do with a firm belief in a mechanistic universe. Day to day experience refutes the idea that the universe is entirely mechanistic. Mathematicaly it is entirely unlikely that it can ever be known whether the universe is mechanistic or not, due to the unfortunate characteristic of the world that it seems to contain infinite complexity, and that recursive formulas necessary to make predictions about complex matters break down with even the slightest error in initial input, and even become rather inscrutible if you have very precise measurements.

If there's a God, your theories are not authoritative. And the reason people believe in God vs you is faith, yes. But that faith is placed there for a reason. If you were to understand that reason instead of trying to marginalize it or set it aside temporarily so that you can pronounce over and over again how very scientific you are, we'd all be able to make some progress here.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. No-one asserts that every living organism on earth came from one creature. That is a gross, yet sadly common misconception regarding the evolutionary history of life.

2. Please explain the explicit barrier that allows for adaptation within a species, but prevents the formation of a new species.

3. What is the question of magnitude? Specifically when dealing with a such a large time frame, changes of magnitude are unnecessary for speciation to occur.

4. What is the assumption of developing complexity that you find unreasonable. Nothing is ever proven in science, but there is evidence in the fossil record to support developing complexity as a result of accumulated adaptation.

So what is the significance of the 4 hydrocarbons present in all terrestrial life? I have been told that this is evidence of a common ancestor to all life. Apparently someone believes this.

As for the other three, hopefully we can agree that just because something can happen, doesn't mean it will, or has. There is such a thing as "statistical impossibility". The objection is that the limited amount of evolution observed in living animals, coupled with the much more prevelant devolution instead of evolution (we have cave species that clearly have lost eyesight and coloration, not to mention all the species that keep going extinct), that it still appears almost absurd that complex animals evolved from simple ones, or that the general trend is from few species to many.

Settle petal? Man you need some sort of crash course in common etiquette. Even if the Babble is a coloquialism where you come from, and I'm begining finally to believe you that it is, it is very poor form, at least on this half of the planet, to call someone names while you try to appologize or clarify your intentions.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
If there's a God, your theories are not authoritative. And the reason people believe in God vs you is faith, yes. But that faith is placed there for a reason. If you were to understand that reason instead of trying to marginalize it or set it aside temporarily so that you can pronounce over and over again how very scientific you are, we'd all be able to make some progress here.

To clarify, faith is not entirely reason-free. This is why a reason vs faith model of discussion here breaks down. People have reasons for their faith, and the reasons have precious little to do with atoms and dirt and fossils and stars. The disagreement comes because the evidence for evolution is flimsy. It just is. And when people hear over and over again that it is just a fact, or very nearly a fact, and yet everyone who has graduated 6th grade knows that the scientific method cannot be applied to the origins of life on earth nor the Big Bang theory, then people begin not only to not be convinced, but to lose trust in the people trying to do the convincing.

It is also a function of the behavior of the scientific community in the courts. We now know by common knowledge that you can hire a scientist to prove anything in court.

It is the product of people like Ray K who take every opportunity to purposefully make personal attacks on folks entire belief system, and that they are associated with evolutionary theory.

It is the product of dozens of things, not least of which is that people know that if there's a God, all the dinosaur bones in the world are proof of nothing, and few people can articulate a good reason why God would make up the creation story if He actually did it some other way.

A lot of this has nothing to do with science, and yet the debate continually revolves around "we have these bones and these rocks".

It's not everyone else's fault! Look to yourself, if you want to know why you're not convincing people. I don't even consider myself a hardcore creationist. Frankly, I don't know how the world came to be. I put trust in the creation story because I lack trust in the university system, the scientific community, and the government, for starters.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


Bunk. The assumptions intrinsic to evolutionary theory have to do with a firm belief in a mechanistic universe. Day to day experience refutes the idea that the universe is entirely mechanistic. Mathematicaly it is entirely unlikely that it can ever be known whether the universe is mechanistic or not, due to the unfortunate characteristic of the world that it seems to contain infinite complexity, and that recursive formulas necessary to make predictions about complex matters break down with even the slightest error in initial input, and even become rather inscrutible if you have very precise measurements.

If there's a God, your theories are not authoritative. And the reason people believe in God vs you is faith, yes. But that faith is placed there for a reason. If you were to understand that reason instead of trying to marginalize it or set it aside temporarily so that you can pronounce over and over again how very scientific you are, we'd all be able to make some progress here.

1. The 'assumptions' of evolution have nothing to do with the physical nature of the universe. Evolution is merely an explanation for the formation of biodiversity on earth. Please refer to that.

2. God may very well exist, but if he does it in no way contradicts Evolution, because evolution does not address God. This debate is solely the evidence for evolution. Please refer to the name of this thread. I'm not trying to tell you how scientific I am. I'm simply trying to tell you that this debate has to be done within the realms of evolutionary biology - nothing else. Faith is there for a reason, you are right. But it has nothing to do with this debate

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

It is the product of dozens of things, not least of which is that people know that if there's a God, all the dinosaur bones in the world are proof of nothing, and few people can articulate a good reason why God would make up the creation story if He actually did it some other way.

First off, all the dinosaur bones prove that either that's what happened, or that God created the world with all this evidence to suggest these things to us. I'm not aware of anything in the scripture where God says "also, I'm going to plant a lot of fake clues to try to trick you".

As to the creation story, have you ever tried to explain something to someone who didn't have the resources or experience to understand it?

Say some guy tells his kid "I build houses". Years later, when the child is nearly an adult, he starts helping out with the family bookkeeping, and discovers that, in fact, his dad is an architect and a contractor, but that all the physical labor is done by subcontractors. Daddy hasn't used a hammer in thirty years or more. Was he lying when he said he built houses?

There are lots of reasons for us to have a nice simple creation story. There are plenty of reasons to keep it around, as a story, even if we no longer believe it is literally true, just as you might decide that, when you meet someone and want to talk about your father's work, it's easier to say "he builds houses" than to say "he engages in a series of contracts and design specification meetings, the end result of which is a house."

Anyway, answer this counter-question: If the dinosaurs didn't exist, and evolution never happened, and so on... Then why are the bones there? Is God playing pranks on us? My God doesn't do that. Is the world inconsistent? I don't think so. God created us capable of reason and learning, and, as time goes on, we are better able to understand the full majesty of his work.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by seebs


First off, all the dinosaur bones prove that either that's what happened, or that God created the world with all this evidence to suggest these things to us. I'm not aware of anything in the scripture where God says "also, I'm going to plant a lot of fake clues to try to trick you".

As to the creation story, have you ever tried to explain something to someone who didn't have the resources or experience to understand it?

Say some guy tells his kid "I build houses". Years later, when the child is nearly an adult, he starts helping out with the family bookkeeping, and discovers that, in fact, his dad is an architect and a contractor, but that all the physical labor is done by subcontractors. Daddy hasn't used a hammer in thirty years or more. Was he lying when he said he built houses?

There are lots of reasons for us to have a nice simple creation story. There are plenty of reasons to keep it around, as a story, even if we no longer believe it is literally true, just as you might decide that, when you meet someone and want to talk about your father's work, it's easier to say "he builds houses" than to say "he engages in a series of contracts and design specification meetings, the end result of which is a house."

Anyway, answer this counter-question: If the dinosaurs didn't exist, and evolution never happened, and so on... Then why are the bones there? Is God playing pranks on us? My God doesn't do that. Is the world inconsistent? I don't think so. God created us capable of reason and learning, and, as time goes on, we are better able to understand the full majesty of his work.

There's nothing complex about explaining that the universe took a long time to design and build.

God didn't prevent satan from doing evil, so I guess the argument that God doesn't pull tricks is not applicable either.

Most importantly, look at the conclusion of the theories, and try, TRY, not to assume that everyone who finds these conclusions a little off the beaten path is not just dumber than you.

If you can't explain something in a convincing way, it is not everyone else's fault.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. The 'assumptions' of evolution have nothing to do with the physical nature of the universe. Evolution is merely an explanation for the formation of biodiversity on earth. Please refer to that.

2. God may very well exist, but if he does it in no way contradicts Evolution, because evolution does not address God. This debate is solely the evidence for evolution. Please refer to the name of this thread. I'm not trying to tell you how scientific I am. I'm simply trying to tell you that this debate has to be done within the realms of evolutionary biology - nothing else. Faith is there for a reason, you are right. But it has nothing to do with this debate

There is an underlying reason why science is called science. and there are different types of sciences, and there are reasons why, for example, people put more faith in penecillin than they do in psychologists. It is not outside the scope of science to discuss the philosophy of science and to point out the difference between evolution theory and plank's constant.

If you're going to talk Omni-magazine style origin of species in a school class you ought to be prepared to allow dissenting opinion to be voiced as well. This is simply a political argument, plain and simple.

If people do not accept the underlying precepts of the theory of evolution, and have good reasons why they don't, then it doesn't matter much what circumstantial evidence you have. You weren't there, you can't bring it back, you can't prove it.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. The 'assumptions' of evolution have nothing to do with the physical nature of the universe. Evolution is merely an explanation for the formation of biodiversity on earth. Please refer to that.

This statement in particular really boggles my mind. A theory that comes about by studying the physical world, and only the physical world, is not influenced by this assumption?

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


There is an underlying reason why science is called science. and there are different types of sciences, and there are reasons why, for example, people put more faith in penecillin than they do in psychologists. It is not outside the scope of science to discuss the philosophy of science and to point out the difference between evolution theory and plank's constant.

If you're going to talk Omni-magazine style origin of species in a school class you ought to be prepared to allow dissenting opinion to be voiced as well. This is simply a political argument, plain and simple.

If people do not accept the underlying precepts of the theory of evolution, and have good reasons why they don't, then it doesn't matter much what circumstantial evidence you have. You weren't there, you can't bring it back, you can't prove it.

True - there are different types of science, but they all have on thing in common - they are based on empirical evidence. Hense Creationism isn't a science.

If you're talking about origin of species in a school class, you have to allow dissenting opinion, certainly, but that dissenting opinion has to be based on observed evidence - hense there are differences within the Theory of Evolution with regards to the mechanisms involved. As for the reason above, Creationism should not be taught in science classes. It doesn't look at evidence and come to a different conclusion. It doesn't look at evidence at all. It just quotes Genesis as the be all and end all of Origins of biodiversity. The Bible is not a text book.

Evidence for evolution is not circumstantial. It is so all pervasive that it is no longer contentious that it occures, but only of how it occurs. Of course I wasn't there - but as I say, mother nature was kind enough to leave a very large legacy in the form of a fossil record.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


This statement in particular really boggles my mind. A theory that comes about by studying the physical world, and only the physical world, is not influenced by this assumption?

Evolution deals solely with the nature of biodiversity. While it doesn't use God necessarily in it's conclusions, it similarly doesn't deny the involvement of God. God and Evolution are entirely compatible. Thus it does not imply the universe is entirely mechanistic/physical

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


True - there are different types of science, but they all have on thing in common - they are based on empirical evidence. Hense Creationism isn't a science.

I think that depends on how you define creationism. Until recently there wasn't even any attempt to reconcile data to any theory other than Darwin's evolutionary model. I think it's to be expected that people doing this are having some troubles jump starting from behind.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
If you're talking about origin of species in a school class, you have to allow dissenting opinion, certainly, but that dissenting opinion has to be based on observed evidence - hense there are differences within the Theory of Evolution with regards to the mechanisms involved. As for the reason above, Creationism should not be taught in science classes. It doesn't look at evidence and come to a different conclusion. It doesn't look at evidence at all. It just quotes Genesis as the be all and end all of Origins of biodiversity. The Bible is not a text book.

Creationsim certainly looks at evidence. it is empirical. It is not physical. It looks at the nature of our minds, at the world around us, and at the history of the human race, and the nature of science itself and what science is and is not capable of doing, and comes to a decision based on this.

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
Evidence for evolution is not circumstantial. It is so all pervasive that it is no longer contentious that it occures, but only of how it occurs. Of course I wasn't there - but as I say, mother nature was kind enough to leave a very large legacy in the form of a fossil record.

It is entirely circumstantial by definition. It is not first hand. it is second hand deduction based on physical traces leftover, and everyone in the world is familiar with legal cases where overwhelming circumstantial evidence turned out to be wrong.

And there you went with the pervasivnis statement again. This is really the scary part of this from the point of view of a person who used to actively enjoy science. It is a recent turn of events that people continually try to press evolution out of the realm of speculation where it belongs and try to make it inot science-fact.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by Shane Roach
There's nothing complex about explaining that the universe took a long time to design and build.

That depends on how detailed an explanation you want to provide. Given that most people outside of biology can't understand more than a very vague description of how heredity works...

God didn't prevent satan from doing evil, so I guess the argument that God doesn't pull tricks is not applicable either.

So, you believe that God lies to us, and has created a world in which there is evidence for things that never happened? I certainly won't accept that.

Most importantly, look at the conclusion of the theories, and try, TRY, not to assume that everyone who finds these conclusions a little off the beaten path is not just dumber than you.

If you can't explain something in a convincing way, it is not everyone else's fault.

I have looked at the conclusions, and I see nothing particularly surprising. As conditions change, the creatures that can survive change. No big deal.

I don't think people who don't agree are dumb; I think many of them are ignorant, especially about biology and statistics.

It's not everyone else's fault if I can't explain things in a convincing way, but it is their fault if they refuse to learn something, and then argue that there's no support for it. If you haven't got at least a biology degree's worth of understanding of the basic mechanisms, and how DNA works, and how we can track DNA from one animal to another, you're in *no* position to discuss whether or not there is "evidence" for evolution; all you can say is that you don't understand the issue well enough to comment.

This is like watching a room full of people argue with a tax accountant that there *must* be some way for them to pay no taxes. You really do need to do the initial study, or all you can do is accept the best judgement of the people who have done it.

This is no different from trusting an engineer when he says that a bridge needs to be built with concrete, iron bars, and a sort of arch-like structure.

 

[Heath Anderson]

Originally posted by Shane Roach


So what is the significance of the 4 hydrocarbons present in all terrestrial life? I have been told that this is evidence of a common ancestor to all life. Apparently someone believes this.

As for the other three, hopefully we can agree that just because something can happen, doesn't mean it will, or has. There is such a thing as "statistical impossibility". The objection is that the limited amount of evolution observed in living animals, coupled with the much more prevelant devolution instead of evolution (we have cave species that clearly have lost eyesight and coloration, not to mention all the species that keep going extinct), that it still appears almost absurd that complex animals evolved from simple ones, or that the general trend is from few species to many.

1. Common Hydrocarbons among organisms certainly would provide evidence of a common ancestor

2. RE: Limited amount of observed evolution. This supports the ToE - Evolution occurs over a large amount of time - much larger than the last 10,000 of recorded human history. Certainly, if we were to record large amounts of evolution (ie multitude of cases of speciation) this would cast doubt on our understanding of evolution.

3. 'Devolution' Here you are constructing a straw man argument. Loss of sight is simply an adaptation to certain niches - particularly in cave species. Natural selection is of course going to favour an organism that doesn't waste precious resources in maintaining an organ that is not beneficial to it's survival. Note you will observe that cave dwelling vertebrates actually do possess eyes - bats are an example. This is evidence of sharing a seeing common ancestor with other, closely related rodents. Evolution is simply niche adaptation over a long period of time - as a result of a dynamic environment, niches change and therefore the organisms within them are forced to change also. Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution, they don't contradict it!

4. Extinction. 99% of all organisms that have ever lived are extinct. Extinction is one of the main supporting tenets of Evolution. Populations that are not best adapted to survive in the environment either change or become extinct, allowing a niche to be filled by another population - Punctuated Equilibrium is a vivid example of this principle.

 

[Ray K]

Originally posted by Shane Roach

Creationsim certainly looks at evidence. it is empirical. It is not physical. It looks at the nature of our minds, at the world around us, and at the history of the human race, and the nature of science itself and what science is and is not capable of doing, and comes to a decision based on this.

The problem is that creationism looks at evidence through the lens of Biblical revelation, and therein lies its fatal flaw. You cannot pick and choose evidence based on whether it agrees with your preconceived notions.

It is entirely circumstantial by definition. It is not first hand. it is second hand deduction based on physical traces leftover, and everyone in the world is familiar with legal cases where overwhelming circumstantial evidence turned out to be wrong.

And yet there is no "overwhelming circumstantial evidence" for creationism. All we see are attacks on evolution and false dichotomies that assert "if evolution is false, then creationism must be true".

I should point you to some Islamic sites that make the same incoherent attacks against evolution as evidence of the truth in the Q'ran.

And there you went with the pervasivnis statement again. This is really the scary part of this from the point of view of a person who used to actively enjoy science. It is a recent turn of events that people continually try to press evolution out of the realm of speculation where it belongs and try to make it inot science-fact.

What's scary is that you claim to enjoy science but continually attack the only scientific theory explaining the diversity of life on Earth. You brush off requests to provide an alternative as if that were an unimportant or trivial request.

And you apparently consider it a personal insult that non-Christians consider your faith nothing more than a primitive mythological system.

I started this thread with detailed explanations of what I consider evidence and falsifications for evolution, and you are apparently intellectually incapable for formulating a similar defense for your mythological creation story. For a theory that you consider as weak as evolution, surely you can concoct something better.

You can rant and rail all you want at me, but you've got nothing left but bluster and I'm not the only one who sees that.

 

[Shane Roach]

Originally posted by Heath Anderson


1. Common Hydrocarbons among organisms certainly would provide evidence of a common ancestor

You were the one telling me evolution does not involve the idea of one common ancestor. What are you doing?

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
2. RE: Limited amount of observed evolution. This supports the ToE - Evolution occurs over a large amount of time - much larger than the last 10,000 of recorded human history. Certainly, if we were to record large amounts of evolution (ie multitude of cases of speciation) this would cast doubt on our understanding of evolution.

Exactly! SO exactly how fast is too fast, and exactly how slow would be so slow that species would simply die out before any diversity appeared?

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
3. 'Devolution' Here you are constructing a straw man argument. Loss of sight is simply an adaptation to certain niches - particularly in cave species. Natural selection is of course going to favour an organism that doesn't waste precious resources in maintaining an organ that is not beneficial to it's survival. Note you will observe that cave dwelling vertebrates actually do possess eyes - bats are an example. This is evidence of sharing a seeing common ancestor with other, closely related rodents. Evolution is simply niche adaptation over a long period of time - as a result of a dynamic environment, niches change and therefore the organisms within them are forced to change also. Vestigial organs are evidence for evolution, they don't contradict it!

Straw man? Far from it, that was about the weakest response I've heard from you yet. Loom, if it is a forgone conclusion that it somehow "saves" energy or something for an eye to devolve and become useless, when or how was it ever energy efficient (or whatever) to develop the thing in the first palce?

Originally posted by Heath Anderson
4. Extinction. 99% of all organisms that have ever lived are extinct. Extinction is one of the main supporting tenets of Evolution. Populations that are not best adapted to survive in the environment either change or become extinct, allowing a niche to be filled by another population - Punctuated Equilibrium is a vivid example of this principle.

See number 2.