Evolutionary Theory Explains Diversity

Sorry RAZD but you state"Practically speaking all fossils are transitional, as they all show features intermediate between ancestor species and daughter species."But since many (if not most) forms of life become extinct prior to evolving it can also be inferred that most fossils represent extinct species that did not transition.I also have a serious problem with the Warbler link you post. Just in line 2 it reads "In central Siberia, two distinct forms of greenish warbler coexist without interbreeding, and therefore these forms can be considered distinct species."By that logic, if a group of humans go live on some Island and don't interbreed with others in the rest of the world then they are a distinct species?So pre Columbus, humans living in The Americas were a different species to those in the rest of the "known" world?I can't take any article that makes these "distinctions" seriously.I understand that you make no distinction between species since you assume/infer that each species is currently in a state of evolution. However, I think this is exactly the heart of the debate.You make no distinction between micro and macro evolution and you state that the only difference is time. I think we have been observing life for enough time where we should see ver distinct new forms of life appearing at some point. We havn't seen that yet in nature.Number of Species - The Physics FactbookTaz also makes an interesting point with the passanger pigeon. There were hundreds of millions and they dominated the skies and yet they are extinct now, leaving neither fossils nor an evolved species. It's a bit strange that a species so well adapted to life, that dominated the skies, with so much chance for random mutation to lead to adaptation would become extinct without evolving and taking the "next step".What can we say for we who dominate the earth? At least we have already left fossils in our "step". But with such a large population will we all evolve into something else? Do we have to isolate some of us and if so for how long?1 million+ species on the planet, age of the earth 4 billion, that's 1 totally new species per 4k years (being ultra conservative since logically more species now should evolve at a faster rate than a billion years ago).With all this being said, I'm not saying microevolution isn't observed and that it can't lead to macroevolution, what I am trying to point out is that the process is far from being "simple" as you claim.If it was so simple, everyone on the planet would grasp is like 2+2=4 and no one would ever question it. The fact it can't be grasped as easily means it's not simple.

---

Estepona Apartments - Apartments for sale and rent in Estepona, Spain

"That would mean you basically don't take any modern population genetics or behaviorally based studies of speciation seriously, nothing in fact not based on the most stringent criteria for defining species."No, I'm just saying that in that particular article, their definition of "distinct species" doesn't convince me. 2 populations side by side of one species who don't interbreed in "human observed" time does not, in my opinion, constitute a different species. We have cases of humans living nearby but not interbreeding and we don't consider them a different species.I'll cite an example. Darwin, having studied the finches in the Galapagos, had concluded that they were different species, also based on the fact he didn't observe them interbreeding. Well, guess what, so many years later, it is known that they do in fact interbreed after more humans have observed them more closely.When the definition of something is loose, it really bothers me when you see that definition being used to draw strict conclusions about something. In this case, species.By the way, Flat Earth Society makes no sense at all. But it is a good example of how, if you stack up enough scientifical jargon and get really technical, you can confuse people.This is why I'm a big fan of simplicity. At every level, exact science makes simple logical sense, only when our explanation of an event is incomplete/incorrect do things get very hard to follow.When I hear that life evolves over time through "random mutations" it makes me cringe because I know for sure there's a simpler answer out there no one's thought of or been able to explain yet."Random mutation" sounds complex and strange and I would place it in the same box as The Flat Earth Society.

"And? What is your point?"Well if you stop taking things out of context you'd see the point I was trying to make, hard to have a constructive discussion if all you're doing is nit picking. Anyway, I'll wait for a response from RAZD since his responses are informative and constructive.