Quote:2.) Life is always evolving because mutations happen, and in the natural world natural selection works on them. A more interesting question might be, are humans still evolving, given the fact that natural selection is not as big a factor in modern existence?
Does the aligator evolve? Or has it basically stayed the same for millions of years?
Selective pressure has obviously not been great enough for so-called living fossils to have changed much. However, claiming that "the" alligator (as opposed to different crocodilian species) has not changed at all is an oversimplification.
This article gives information about recently-discovered fossils which appear to be the most primitive yet discovered of modern crocodilians (crocodiles, alligators and gharials). There are features of this creature, such as the power of its bite, which would have given it an evolutionary advantage, as well as the fact that it would have had little competition or predation in its ecological niche. Other crocodilian species have become extinct, and the ones existing today are the ones which were obviously most successful in surviving selective pressure.
There is no "rule" that says that evolution has to proceed at the same pace for every species. Much depends on its environment.
Evolution has supposetly already gone on for millions of years, what would make it stop now?
You were asking where evolution stops. I said it would require mutations not being passed on to offspring, and the end of selective pressure from the environment. Can humans in the developed world eliminate both of these factors? To an extent maybe. It's a subject for debate.
Ever heard of reverse adaptation? I'll be doing a thread on that later.
Please do. While you're at it, it would be refreshing for you to state your claims without adding any
ad hominem, as opposed to other threads you have started here.
I've never heard the term "de-evolve."
To have a mutation that henders more than helps. In other words it is a degression as far as evolution is concerned.
"De-evolve" isn't a scientific term, but "harmful mutation" is. Natural selection works against these, which is where the term "survival of the fittest" comes in.
The Bible is the only known record of anything way back when.
So the Chinese and Indians were doing what . . . painting pretty pictures which happen to look like language? Or do they not count for some reason?
The rest is our unterpretation based on end game evidence about processes we cannot observe or condirm to happen.
What is "the rest"?
Are you claiming that the Bible is so unambiguous in every respect that it is beyond interpretation? What are Biblical scholars doing then? And why are there so many Christian sects, as well as three Abrahamic religions?
Still claiming that we can't learn anything from clues about the past? We'd better give up all hope that we can learn anything from the scene of a crime then.
You also seem to be ignoring reminders that Russ2 has posted here about bacteria which have been
observed to evolve. Ignoring the evidence doesn't make it disappear, nor does claiming it doesn't exist.
