Well, talk about a contradiction. Vying for living space is competition. What the he** do these people think Darwin meant when he said survival of the fittest? To say that food and habitat etc played a part in evolution but competition didn’t is just about the stupidest statement I have ever read from an evolutionists and I have read some dandies.
Thank you;)
This brilliant hypotheses from folks sitting in cubicles - forgetting that their ancestors needed acreage for crops, livestock and a vantage point of protection from raiders.
No need for further evolution - we are at the apogee!!!!!!
Haven’t read the study, but I don’t think it’s a contradiction.
They are saying speciation tends to happen when resources are abundant and competition is minimal. The way I was taught it is the opposite—that intense competition spurs speciation.
It makes sense to me—when a new niche opens up, you suddenly have a range of adaptive changes to that niche.
This data could also mean thus: that lots of available space results AFTER an extinction event. The result being an uptick in the number of new species evolving to fill voids in an environment.
When the dinosaurs went extinct at the TK boundary, a wide open environment was the result. (Yes, I know it took a very, very long time for the environment to return somewhat to normalcy after being whacked by an asteroid.) But mammals were up to the challenge.
For those Christian Fundamentalists who don’t know, mammals were around from BEFORE the existance of the dinosaurs. There were lots of very big reptiles who made mammals lives difficult.