I thought species were broader classifications than that. I'm not a biology guru, but for example, you have different breeds of horses, but aren't they the same species?
I don't see how the comparison works about humans, moving from one area to the world to another, become different species.
My original question was about whether in Darwin's theory parallel species shouldn't evolve/adapt to survive in much the same manner when they face the same environment/events?
And since we know that the genes are actually different through DNA, how could the difference be explained by the two species simply making different physical adaptations to external circumstances?
Isn't it more likely that the genes were inherently different from the beginning? I mean no one thinks we evolved from the line that produced elephants.
Or that a mutation of some sort occurred that became widespread enough to make the two species viable and distinguisable?
How about this? If evolution is not to the "fittest" --meaning a natural progression toward a "better" product-- but to the 'fitted'--meaning adapted to the external conditions--then couldn't apes be evolved from humans?
> you have different breeds of horses, but aren't they the same species?
Yes. But separate the horses geographically and eventually they won't be.
> My original question was about whether in Darwin's theory parallel species shouldn't evolve/adapt to survive in much the same manner when they face the same environment/events?
Assume "horses." Let some breedign group romp around the steppes of Asia. Now, extact some and dump them in the American plains. Leave humans out of it. Even though these are somewhat similar environemtns, WHY do you think that these two separate groups would necessarily evolve in the same direction? The two mechanisms of evolution are natural selection and mutation. Mutations are random.
> I mean no one thinks we evolved from the line that produced elephants.
Depends on how far back you go. Humans and elephants do have a common ancestor, probably on the order of 60 or more million years ago, I suppose.
> If evolution is not to the "fittest" --meaning a natural progression toward a "better" product--
Wrong meaning. "Fittest" simply means "best capable of producing the most viable offspirng in a particular environment." For humans, that has generally meant "smarter." For gorrillas that meant "stronger." "Better" is a concept without much meaning here.
> but to the 'fitted'--meaning adapted to the external conditions--then couldn't apes be evolved from humans?
No. The fossil record *AND* detailed DNA analysis shows the relationships and trends.