[Mylo]

Say what?

I didn't repeat what you said because claptrap about species being "more" or "less" evolved is only spoken of by people with barely a nascent understanding of what evolution entails, assume that humans are the pinnacle of evolution and evolution entails progress (it doesn't), or are racist scum who think that they are somehow "more evolved" than other humans despite the fact that there is very little genetic variation among humans, and none of the variation makes anybody "better" or "more evolved".

[RightWhale]

You might be reading something into a post of mine that isn't there. None of that reflects my view on anything. Perhaps you are responding to another poster, but I have no interest in your analysis.

[Gumlegs]

It would appear that RW's understanding of evolution requires species to die out once they have descendants. Efficiently filling an ecological niche has nothing to do with it. Competition, or the lack thereof, for resources has nothing to do with it.

This is apparently also the theory of evolution that would require fish to give birth to rabbits and individual dinosaurs to suddenly sprout wings for birds to have appeared.

No wonder no one believes it.