Replies

You assume that the periods of punctuated equilibrium are always global catastrophes. No. One species can be in trouble while another is doing just fine. The one in trouble may have broken up into small sub-populations, some of which may fairly rapidly evolve a new adaptation, some of which probably go extinct. The various species that are doing fine will probably stay about the same, since the pressures on them are to basically not break what's working.

The now-extinct species most closely related to man might be archaic Homo sapiens, assuming it would even be a different species. I'll avoid Homo sapiens neandertalensis since it's generally not classified as a distinct species, although that may change. Anyway, Homo erectus is the ancestor of both of the preceding and is generally considered a separate species.

Some species don't show any morphological change in practically forever. Cyanobacteria (blue-green algae) are a case in point. They presumably have mutations, but anything that takes them far from their adaptation dies out. They're at a local fitness maximum.

I have read - and re-read this response. You answered only one question (1.b.2).

I did not assume anything. "Natural influence" does not equate to "global catastrophe."

I did not imply that every species is continually changing. I asked if YOU believe that mankind is continually evolving and likely to change into another species.

The context of my questions is mankind. Please respond in that context.

And I do thank you for a beneficial dialog.

The now-extinct species most closely related to man might be archaic Homo sapiens, assuming it would even be a different species. I'll avoid Homo sapiens neandertalensis since it's generally not classified as a distinct species, although that may change. Anyway, Homo erectus is the ancestor of both of the preceding and is generally considered a separate species.

What's the deal, Reep? You figure if you repeat that kind of BS often enough it'll become true??

Neanderthal DNA has been analyzed, the result being that it has been described as "about halfway between ours and that of a chimpanzee", thus cleanly eliminating the neanderthal as a plausible human ancestor. Now, home erectus was clearly much further removed from modern man than the neanderthal, and yet you are claiming that erectus is ancestral to modern man because the neanderthal could not be?? I mean, why not just go all the way back and claim modern man is descended directly from fish or one-celled animals???

Face it, Reep, there is no plausible ancestor for modern man in the fossil record and that is a huge problem for evolutionists.