Originally Posted by
SkyWriting
-
-Life would commonly spring from non-life
We'll assume
different locations then. Just try it.
- Life would commonly develop more and more complicated forms
That would
include my statement.
- A majority of species would have living transitional forms from one species into an entirely different kind of species
Prove why they all wouldn't be around in different environments. Let's say in 1% of all cases.
- "Ring species" would not be rare. Non-ring-species would be rare.
For those that don't know, ring species can be explained like this. Imagine a lake. At the north end, you have a species of salamander. This population spreads southwards along both sides of the lake. The population on each side is separated from the other by a barrier, the lake. As you go south, the different selective pressures (predators, different local climates, etc) will cause the salamanders to adapt. Thus, you end up with an ancestral species (the first species of salamander), and a series of different species of salamander down each side of the lake, getting more and more different from the original species the further south you go. However, the species will not change the same way on the eastern side of the lake that they do on the western side. Thus, even though any slamander is similar enough to the salamnders a little bit north and a little bit south of it that they can mate, a salamander from the northern end can't mate with a salamander at the southern end. And what's more, when you get to the southern end, the two different "tribes" of salamander (one from the east shore and the other from the west) will have changed enough that they won't be able to mate either.
Why don't we see this more often? The simple fact is that we do. Often, the barrier is time itself. In the above salamander example, we had two different species of salamander at the southern end, but they had the north-end species as a common ancestor. Likewise, any two species alive today have a common ancestor. With closely related animals, such as a sparrow and a finch, the common ancestor lived fairly recently. With two more distantly related species, such as a dog and a lizard, the common ancestor lived much longer ago. But, just as in the salamanders, once the split was made, there were two separate populations, each evolving in its own way two become two different species. Just as in the salamander example.
- Humans would be the most refined, the most perfect, the best adapted, the most socially perfect of any species that ever existed.
Why?
- All species and animal life would exist in perfect harmony with it's environment.
No they wouldn't. All species and animal life would strive to gain whatever advantages they could.
A good example is a forest. Ever wonder why trees grow so tall? because they are striving to rise above their competitors - other trees - in their need to expose their leaves to sunlight. Now, if every tree could agree to limit its height to say, ten feet, then they would all have the same chance to gather light as their neighbours, and everyone benefits by not have to spend a huge amount of resources growing a huge trunk.
But say one tree grows to eleven feet tall. It has an advantage now. the other trees are missing out. And that's what drives them to grow taller. And then for others to grow taller still.
- The more "Natural & Wild" humans acted, the better. -We would gladly kill off any overpopulated areas.
If the goal is survival, I get to choose what it means to me.
-We'd destroy any babies that don't seem fit for society.
No more untrue statement could be said.
- We'd throw Steven Hawkins over a cliff.
Animals naturally abandon those who can't walk.