> 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.
Well, you certainly sound like you know your stuff.
"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?"
Uh...because faced with the same environment, eating grass, quadripedal, horses wouldn't turn into eagles over time because there would be no need for a drastic change to survive.
For gorrillas that meant "stronger." Why? I don't see that gorillas really have much use or need for strength. For all their show when frightened, they seldom use their strength according to what I've read.
They are herbivores primarily and live in areas where there aren't many natural predators of any size that attack them. So can we assume that they are on their way to evolving into smaller animals that won't need as much fodder to survive?