Thread: evolution
View Single Post
Old 12-22-03, 05:37 PM   #33 (permalink)
Zoe's Avatar
Join Date: Mar-2002
Location: Ottawa
Age: 30
Posts: 3,288
Send a message via MSN to Zoe
Ultimately evolution is the force that gives rise to all new adaptations.
Perhaps I'm not understanding how you're saying things, but I still think you have the two terms backwards. Adaptations often eventually lead to evolution - not the other way around.

Im am not doubting that evolution is a long and slow process
Isn't that what you are saying, though? That species stay the same then very rapidly, over a few generations, become a new species? If that's what you're saying, then IYO evolution is rapid.

Species do in fact tend to remain stable for long periods of time and then to change relatively abruptly-or rather, to be replaced by newer and more successful forms.
See, I just don't see the logic in that. Obviously, the period of time during one species is actually becoming another is shorter, but I don't see how one species could remain exactly the same over geological eras, despite climate changes, natural disasters, etc etc etc and then suddenly be replaced by an entirely differnent species.
For example, punctuated equilibrium can't be solely responsible for the Compsognathus(a little dino that archaeopteryx is believed to have evolved from)-Archaeopteryx transition. Now, archaeopteryx lived during a relatively short period of time during the upper jurassic era - it obviously wasn't "meant" to survive as a species but "meant" to become another. If punctuated equilibrium were true, archaeopteryx never would have existed and Compsognathus would have been immediately replaced by birds. Or even, Archaeopteryx would have become a bird - but it didn't. There were several intermediate steps between Archaeopteryx and birds.

Zoe is offline