[Gumlegs]

I don't disagree. It's the misconception that the presence of a "more evolved" species requires the extinction of the "less evolved" species that I was attempting to address. You'll notice G3K has posted a similar misunderstanding in his post 77 to this thread:

A question which I never hear evolutionists answer is why if evolution goes on all the time, if evolution occurs because species must adapt to survive, why are amoebas, such simple creatures, still around after some billion years? Why if evolution goes on all the time, these creatures remain simple and unchanged?

77 posted on 6/17/02 9:27 AM Eastern by gore3000

[Nebullis]

It's the misconception that the presence of a "more evolved" species requires the extinction of the "less evolved" species that I was attempting to address.

'Why are there still monkeys? and 'Why are there still bacteria?' address different issues. In answer to the first question, there is no claim that the common ancestor of humans and monkeys is extant, unchanged from the time of divergence. There are species, however, which have remained largely unchanged for billions of years. And why is that? The simple answer is success of the species in many different niches. Bacteria, however, are not genetically isolated and extensive lateral transfer of DNA, speaks against genetic insulation required for an unchanging species.

So, the answer to the second question, in fact, is more complex and the question not ridiculous.