It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Scientific Fact

page: 2
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:23 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 





I refuse to retract the statement, but I do appreciate the fairness given. The correct terminology is transitional fossil, not missing link. The terminology 'missing link' has gone out of disuse by Evolutionary Theory scientists due to discoveries made and new knowledge gained. At least from my understanding of the terms. From my experience, the terminology of 'missing link' has been argued by creationists in attempt to 'disprove' evolution as a fact rather than Evolutionary Theory as a process.

Very well. Appreciate and understand. All is well then. You
do understand my perception of the statement as it were?
Perhaps you might agree on the nap. I don't know just kidding.


[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]




posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 06:37 PM
link   
reply to post by sirnex
 


translated, doesn't that mean that there are so few links between fossils that evolutionism has had to abandon the idea of links almost entirely.

what i mean is, a bat isn't a link between a mammal and a bird any more than a platypus is a link between a duck and a beaver, there's just this weird system where life seems capable of inhabiting any niche presented by changing in responce to demands put upon it.

these changes happen really quickly where they're observed.

you can argue there is a designer or you can argue that there isn't, but to me, often the arguments to say that there is no designer centre on the fact that there is no evidence for a designer.

this makes as much sense to me as trying to convince me that, because i don't have any evidence as to who designed my laptop, it simply evolved by natural proceses from that casio calculator i lost in 1992.

just an observation.



posted on Oct, 23 2009 @ 08:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by captaintyinknots
 





So basically, you don't want to hear that your source is biased. Too bad. It is. And no where in that article does it do anything to prove god or debunk evolution.

Duh! That was the whole point of what I didn't want to hear. How do you present evidence of anything without some bias. The magazine is bias,
get over it. Or if you like I could plagerize every word. Now speak to the facts of the article. Not one of you can argue to the forensics. Their is a gigantic language in DNA that can only be explained by the presence of a super intelligence who isn't anything remotely like any man, invisible or whatever.
That possibility is obviously so hard for some of you to even consider so don't even talk about the word bias, because you only make yourselves
seem maniacle (with the acception of pieman). Copy?
The 1932 movie described very well how invisibility would drive a mortal
out of his mind. That's a different bit of truth all together.

[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]

[edit on 23-10-2009 by randyvs]


Wow. You cannot possibly expect any type of discourse when you won't accept any point of view but those that align themselves with your own. I cannot believe you actually had the gall to sent me a u2u so that I'd come waste my time with this again.

If I were to rebut your article with one from a completely atheistic point of view, you would disregard that too.

Again, as I said in my first post, nowhere in your article does it prove or disprove anything. It is simply theory.

If you knew anything about evolution, the answer as to the 'language' is quite simple. I won't ruin the surprise for you-sufficed to say, it's a good one.

That you think you can possibly speak to me and what I believe is not only arrogant, it is downright stupid. I replied to your article-I said nothing of my beliefs. Yet you assumed you know me-which shows outright that you are not here for true debate, but rather to hear those that agree with you.

Sorry, bud, that aint me.

As for being maniacal, what exactly do you call a person who opens a debate on the guise of open discourse, only to pigeon hole the type of responses he wants?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:33 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



translated, doesn't that mean that there are so few links between fossils that evolutionism has had to abandon the idea of links almost entirely.


So just we're clear on the terminology, there is no such thing as Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a derogatory term used by creationist to liken it to a religious faith. The issue at hand is, Evolution itself is a fact, has been observed and is demonstrable. The creationists problem should be with the theory itself which postulates viable mechanism's for evolutionary changes within a species.


what i mean is, a bat isn't a link between a mammal and a bird any more than a platypus is a link between a duck and a beaver, there's just this weird system where life seems capable of inhabiting any niche presented by changing in responce to demands put upon it.


Well, of course life would fill whatever environmental niche presented to it. Evolutionary changes are dependent not only on successful reproductive cycles, but also environmental factors. There is a lot of information about this available on the internet if your truly willing to learn more about it.


this makes as much sense to me as trying to convince me that, because i don't have any evidence as to who designed my laptop, it simply evolved by natural proceses from that casio calculator i lost in 1992.


This is why I despise the creationist side of the argument as the tactic employs a God of the gaps argument. Just because you haven't taken the time to learn what the theory is stating or the multitude of processes and variables involved does not inherently make the fact of observance false.

There is no process in our universe that allows for a fully functioning computer complete with an operating system and a renewable energy power plant to come about by natural means, but our universe does contain the physics that allow organic life to arise from non organic compounds capable of self replication and changes.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 11:45 AM
link   
reply to post by randyvs
 


The article is saying that since DNA is so complex that it can't be by accident.

In the complexity of the universe, everything is complex.

If you actually sat down and studied ecology and its relations, it is extremely complex.

Nature can handle complex.

The fact that DNA may seem complex to US so it can't be evolution is just plain silly.

And to state that DNA made evolution a conundrum is even sillier. In fact, DNA backed up everything that was stated.

As for life being randomly created? That is not hard to swallow either.

Like the PP said, the universe is vast and complicated. It is not unfeasible that in the numbers at some point something will mix right and create life.

And in all actualality, there may be Vulcans and Klingons out there.

As I heard on NPR, things are not as random as people think.

As the professor in Berkely stated, if a person on a green hits a golf ball and it lands on the blade of grass, that grass feels very special that out of trillions and trillions of blades of grass, the ball landed on it. But in actuality, since the ball was being hit to land on the grass, the fact that it landed on grass is not random at all.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 01:24 PM
link   
You would say that man is designed.
There are many inherent flaws in mankind, such as superfluous organs.
People are really not as much separated from animals as we'd want to believe.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
So just we're clear on the terminology, there is no such thing as Evolutionism. Evolutionism is a derogatory term used by creationist to liken it to a religious faith.


thanks for defining the term for me, just to correct you, it isn't just creationists that use it as a word for those who treat evolution as a article of faith.


The issue at hand is, Evolution itself is a fact, has been observed and is demonstrable.


i think you'll find you're wrong, evolution hasn't been observed, isn't demonstrable and certainly isn't repeatable. so it's not a scientific fact. that's why they call it a theory.


This is why I despise the creationist side of the argument as the tactic employs a God of the gaps argument.


god of the gaps, for a guy constructing such needlessly complicated sentances your comprihension seems quite low. god of the gaps? let me explain this simply, in words even you might understand. it's a basic scientific principle, i'm not surprised you've missed it.

supportive evidence supports, contradictory evidence contradicts, a lack of evidence says nothing, means nothing and should not be used to suggest anything.

a lack of evidence says nothing about god.


our universe does contain the physics that allow organic life to arise from non organic compounds capable of self replication and changes.


wow, really, because there are a ton of prizes up for grabs for explaining that mechanism, seeing as you seem uninterested in claiming anything so low, explain it to me and i'll go claim the honers.

i hear a nobel check calling, me an' obama, heading to stockholm, gonna claim some nobel prizes we haven't earned, yeah baby.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:19 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



thanks for defining the term for me, just to correct you, it isn't just creationists that use it as a word for those who treat evolution as a article of faith.


From my own personal experience and hundreds of articles on the internet that include the term 'Evolutionism', it has been used by only creationists attempting to argue against the theory.


i think you'll find you're wrong, evolution hasn't been observed, isn't demonstrable and certainly isn't repeatable. so it's not a scientific fact. that's why they call it a theory.


You must not pay attention to news articles then. Evolution is a fact and has been observed numerous times. Evolutionary Theory describes a viable mechanism for evolutionary changes within a species. The observation of evolution is not a theory itself, but an observation that lead to the development of the theory on how it occurs.


a lack of evidence says nothing about god.


And yet, this is the exact tactic employed by IDist's. Because Evolutionary Theory hasn't yet described a mechanism for a certain aspect of biology in a species to evolve from a more non complex origination, it must then therefore be a sign of an intelligent designer, simply because there is no current understanding for how that complex system first arose.


wow, really, because there are a ton of prizes up for grabs for explaining that mechanism, seeing as you seem uninterested in claiming anything so low, explain it to me and i'll go claim the honers.


Ah OK, I get ya. Physics, chemistry and biology are all wrong is what your saying, correct? I mean, to make that statement one would have to assume that despite all the advancements made, the fields of science must somehow be inherently wrong because they disallow a supernatural intelligent entity to have a hand in anything.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
it has been used by only creationists attempting to argue against the theory.
well now you've seen it used by a non-creationist to describe the attitude you described.


You must not pay attention to news articles then.
oh no, i do.


Evolution is a fact and has been observed numerous times.
you'll have no problem providing exampless then, please proceed.


Evolutionary Theory describes a viable mechanism for evolutionary changes within a species.
yeah, go ahead, explain it.


The observation of evolution is not a theory itself, but an observation that lead to the development of the theory on how it occurs.


what are you talking about, that statement is nonsense, it makes my head hurt.


And yet, this is the exact tactic employed by IDist's.
i'm not an "IDist" either but that's besides the point. if you dismiss ID as unfounded you must also admit that your belief that there is no god is unfounded.


Ah OK, I get ya. Physics, chemistry and biology are all wrong is what your saying, correct?


no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that there is no known mechanism by which inanimate matter become animate. if you know of such a mechanism, there are a ton of cash prizes for describing it.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:45 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



and it's a waste of time argument, if scientists create life, fundamentalists will say "god made us in his image, of course we can create life", IDers will say "see, life was designed" and atheists will say "see, who needs god" and they'll still all be equally right.


you're right.

So why continue to deny the possibility of God? by your own standards as a "scientist" you should not prove nor disprove ANYTHING without PROOF.

You have no proof that God does not exist, just like we can't prove God does exist, so how can you, by your own accepted standards, say God doesn't exist?



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



well now you've seen it used by a non-creationist to describe the attitude you described.


Well that is certainly interesting, what are your basic problems with the observations leading to the theory of the process?


you'll have no problem providing exampless then, please proceed.


Well, I find it interesting that you claim to pay attention to the news but haven't heard of any evidences for evolution occurring.

LINK
LINK
LINK


yeah, go ahead, explain it.


While I would love to, the many processes and variables are way to lengthy for one post, but there are a multitude of websites that do explain Evolutionary Theory if you are truly interesting in learning more about it and what it entails.


what are you talking about, that statement is nonsense, it makes my head hurt.


When we're talking about evolution as a fact, we're talking about the observation made in nature of species changing or evolving. When we're talking about Evolutionary Theory, we're talking about the theory on how that process of change occurs in nature. Does that help any?


i'm not an "IDist" either but that's besides the point. if you dismiss ID as unfounded you must also admit that your belief that there is no god is unfounded.


Well, yes and no. While I can't say for a fact that there is no God or infinite amount of Gods and none of us are able to determine an accurate amount of Gods or their role in our universe, we can look at the history of religious systems and see that the concepts of God(s) were invented by early primitive man to explain the many mysterious of the world around him.


no, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying that there is no known mechanism by which inanimate matter become animate. if you know of such a mechanism, there are a ton of cash prizes for describing it.


Ah OK, I misunderstood, I thought you were calling into question the physics involved that allow non-organics to combine into organic compounds. Yes, the mechanism for how the organic compounds developed into self replication is still a mystery at this point, yet not knowing that mechanism for sure doesn't invalidate evolution as a fact nor does it provide evidence for a God.



posted on Oct, 24 2009 @ 06:28 PM
link   
That article is pure BS. They dont even know the difference between evolution and abiogenesis. Abiogenesis speaks about life from nonlife, and its not proven yet. Evolution speaks about complex life from simple life, it says nothing about its first appearance, and is proven beyond doubt. They claimed they disproved the abiogenesis theory (which they didnt..) and then somehow equated it with falsifying evolution. Everyone must see the obvious fallacy of this...


[edit on 24-10-2009 by Maslo]



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 04:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Well that is certainly interesting, what are your basic problems with the observations leading to the theory of the process?


please be clear, what are you asking?
i have a problem with a dogmatic belief in anything being called scientific.


Well, I find it interesting that you claim to pay attention to the news but haven't heard of any evidences for evolution occurring.


oh right, you clearly don't understand what you're reading. none of that is evidence of one type of animal becoming another, an evolution. if you look at the evidence trying to find evidence of evolution, that's what it'll suggest. if you view it looking for evidence of design, that's what you'll find. i think you'l find that that is my point.


While I would love to, the many processes and variables are way to lengthy for one post


that's a cop out, you can't explain it.


When we're talking about evolution as a fact, we're talking about the observation made in nature of species changing or evolving.


change is not evolution, change in nature is adaptation, evolution is the generation of one species from the basis of another. there is little evidence that collective changes create evolution.


When we're talking about Evolutionary Theory, we're talking about the theory on how that process of change occurs in nature.


you don't seem to understand what you're talking about and the way you use pointlessly complex sentences to say nothing makes my head hurt.


we can look at the history of religious systems and see that the concepts of God(s) were invented by early primitive man to explain the many mysterious of the world around him.


we can also see that the belief in the supernatural is universal, it seems to be a fundamental instinct in man, as natural to man as sex, food, water or shelter. sometimes more so. to dismiss it as primative invention without contrary evidence seems a bit ... arrogant.


Yes, the mechanism for how the organic compounds developed into self replication is still a mystery at this point


so when you go on about the organic compounds being capable of self replication, you know they aren't actually self replicating then? you know well, because it's been done loads of times, that all the required elements can be put together in just the right way and they still will remain inanimate. that there is something besides understood physics and chemistry involved. you know that, don't you.

fundamentally, it's not that we almost get it, fundamentally, we haven't got a clue why, what, how or..dare i say it... who life is.

it's not a "god of the gaps", it's a science of the periphery. life, the important bit, we're actually not even capable of defining it, never mind describing it.

i'm a realist, evolution is as likely as transmogrification. the science of life will flounder until it accepts this fundamental truth.



posted on Oct, 25 2009 @ 09:01 PM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



please be clear, what are you asking?
i have a problem with a dogmatic belief in anything being called scientific.


I was clear, is English a second language for you?


oh right, you clearly don't understand what you're reading. none of that is evidence of one type of animal becoming another, an evolution. if you look at the evidence trying to find evidence of evolution, that's what it'll suggest. if you view it looking for evidence of design, that's what you'll find. i think you'l find that that is my point.


Ah, so you think Evolutionary Theory is stating that a fish should turn into a bird?


that's a cop out, you can't explain it.


Far from it really. Honestly, a decent explanation would be to lengthy to type out and contain too many characters permitted by ATS. But like I said, there are a ton of decent explanations of Evolutionary Theory ranging from grade school explanations right up to research papers available on the internet for your enjoyment.


change is not evolution, change in nature is adaptation, evolution is the generation of one species from the basis of another. there is little evidence that collective changes create evolution.


Adaptation is one of the basic fundamentals of the evolutionary process and is predicted by the theory and observed in nature.


you don't seem to understand what you're talking about and the way you use pointlessly complex sentences to say nothing makes my head hurt.


In all honesty, the sentence was not complex at all and it goes to show that your not understanding basic concepts.


we can also see that the belief in the supernatural is universal, it seems to be a fundamental instinct in man, as natural to man as sex, food, water or shelter. sometimes more so. to dismiss it as primative invention without contrary evidence seems a bit ... arrogant.


Actually, spiritualistic explanations for things is not universal. There are some tribes even in modern times that don't relate any creation myths. One would also think that math and language are natural instinctual fundamentals of man, but even that is not the case.


so when you go on about the organic compounds being capable of self replication, you know they aren't actually self replicating then? you know well, because it's been done loads of times, that all the required elements can be put together in just the right way and they still will remain inanimate. that there is something besides understood physics and chemistry involved. you know that, don't you.


No, I don't know that and nor does anyone else know what those 'right conditions' are. This is what we're currently experimenting with to discover. The closest we've been able to accomplish towards developing a working model is the creation of organic compounds from non organic compounds. The next achievement would be discovering the conditions required to combine those organic compounds into self replicating life. Without knowing the variables required, we can't say exactly how it starts, but we do know through biology and chemistry that the universe does allow for it. Not knowing the process is not proof of anything else.


i'm a realist, evolution is as likely as transmogrification. the science of life will flounder until it accepts this fundamental truth.


You sound nothing like a realist. What is this fundamental truth you propose to have figured out that the rest of humanity has been incapable of 'getting' for over one-hundred thousand years now?



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 04:46 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
I was clear, is English a second language for you?


no, first language. i undertand the words just fine, i know what they mean, you just don't seem capable of putting them together in a coherent fashion.


Ah, so you think Evolutionary Theory is stating that a fish should turn into a bird?
WTF? that is what it states, via x number of steps, a fish becomes a bird.


Honestly, a decent explanation would be to lengthy to type out and contain too many characters permitted by ATS.


honestly, there is no way you could type a decent explanation because by the time you'ld finished, another piece of awkward evidence would have had to have been shoehorned in, making half of what you typed obsolete.


Adaptation is one of the basic fundamentals of the evolutionary process and is predicted by the theory and observed in nature.


if you theorise that the sun travels around the earth, you can predict it will rise each morning and observe that it rises each morning, but you'll still be wrong.


Actually, spiritualistic explanations for things is not universal. There are some tribes even in modern times that don't relate any creation myths.


i think you'll find i didn't mention a creation myth or spiritualistic beliefs. tell me of one tribe that does not have any belief in the supernatural. if you can't, accept what i said, belief in the supernatural is almost universal.


One would also think that math and language are natural instinctual fundamentals of man, but even that is not the case.


i never said they were. actually, language is instinctual to a baby where they are exposed to it but the ability seems to disappear at about 3, math doesn't seem to be instinctual at all.


The closest we've been able to accomplish towards developing a working model is the creation of organic compounds from non organic compounds.
okay....how long have we been able to do that? 200 years? hardly an earth shattering rate of development, is it.


Not knowing the process is not proof of anything else.


leaving aside the fact that you dismiss this idea where a theist says it, contrary evidence can suggest conclusions. every known condition on the earth at the time the first life appeared has been tested, and then some. nothing ever happens. this suggests that there is no known condition under which "life" will normally spontaneously develop.


What is this fundamental truth you propose to have figured out that the rest of humanity has been incapable of 'getting' for over one-hundred thousand years now?


that just because you think you know something, and everybody agrees with you, doesn't mean you are right. i don't think i'm the first to figure it out though!!



[edit on 26/10/09 by pieman]



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 09:47 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 




oh right, you clearly don't understand what you're reading. none of that is evidence of one type of animal becoming another, an evolution.


Observed speciation events:
www.talkorigins.org...
www.talkorigins.org...
en.wikipedia.org... - look for observed instances

..enough?




change is not evolution, change in nature is adaptation, evolution is the generation of one species from the basis of another. there is little evidence that collective changes create evolution.


Change of one species into another REQUIRES some reproduction barrier. (mountain range, sea, different food sources..). Then, there is nothing to "synchronise" accumulating changes in the isolated populations, and they will gradually diverge, ultimately leading to two species instead of one - speciation



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by Maslo
Observed speciation events:
[snip]

..enough?


i'm not convinced. selective breeding by humans just prooves that it is possible to selectively breed animals and plants. that's kind of a given considdering the melenia of agriculture. is that evolution?

where it happens naturally, the new "species" arise through adaptation to an isolated environment, it doesn't really work for every animal on the planet.

i'm not saying "evolution through natural selection" isn't a good idea, it just doesn't really seem to work in reality


Change of one species into another REQUIRES some reproduction barrier. (mountain range, sea, different food sources..). Then, there is nothing to "synchronise" accumulating changes in the isolated populations, and they will gradually diverge, ultimately leading to two species instead of one - speciation


so why is there more than one type of whale?

never mind, i'm sure there is some incredibly complex explanation to this simple question involving a ton a supposition and no evidence.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 10:54 AM
link   
reply to post by pieman
 



no, first language. i undertand the words just fine, i know what they mean, you just don't seem capable of putting them together in a coherent fashion.


Really? Re-read that sentence in question and explain to me where I wasn't 'coherent', what was wrong with it?


WTF? that is what it states, via x number of steps, a fish becomes a bird.


I assume you mean a magical jump from one species to another, but yes small changes can lead to huge differences over time. Your excluding a vast number of processes that cause and lead to those changes in your argument. It isn't *just* x number of steps or changes.


honestly, there is no way you could type a decent explanation because by the time you'ld finished, another piece of awkward evidence would have had to have been shoehorned in, making half of what you typed obsolete.


Half truth. Yes, possibly by the time I finish writing what has already been written and known up to this point in time could very well change, but that change occurs in a theory is not evidence against the theory. New discoveries made have changed what Darwin first postulated into something much more complex in nature, the point of the fact is, evolution is still observed in nature.


if you theorise that the sun travels around the earth, you can predict it will rise each morning and observe that it rises each morning, but you'll still be wrong.


And if you theorize that if you pray to a rain God for rain and it rains, you would still be wrong that there exists a rain God. No different than saying because I can't fathom how X process occurs then it must be wrong and let's insert my own special definition of deity there to explain it.


i think you'll find i didn't mention a creation myth or spiritualistic beliefs. tell me of one tribe that does not have any belief in the supernatural. if you can't, accept what i said, belief in the supernatural is almost universal.


Supernatural and spiritualist pretty much go hand in hand as far as I am concerned. I don't see the differences between the two. I already agreed that it was almost universal by stating it was not totally universal. You never initially said 'almost' universal.


i never said they were. actually, language is instinctual to a baby where they are exposed to it but the ability seems to disappear at about 3, math doesn't seem to be instinctual at all.


Your right, you didn't mention my two examples, but taken into context of your initial statement that the supernatural is universal was to point out that no, not everything appears to be a fundamental universal thing like the need for food, water, sex or shelter as you liked to describe it.


okay....how long have we been able to do that? 200 years? hardly an earth shattering rate of development, is it.


So now you demand that science should have an answer because of what? Scientific advancement is not an over night accomplishment. Yes, we're increasing our rate of discovery, but lets not forget the last seven to ten-thousand years of stagnant human civilization.


leaving aside the fact that you dismiss this idea where a theist says it, contrary evidence can suggest conclusions. every known condition on the earth at the time the first life appeared has been tested, and then some. nothing ever happens. this suggests that there is no known condition under which "life" will normally spontaneously develop.


What contrary evidence?


that just because you think you know something, and everybody agrees with you, doesn't mean you are right. i don't think i'm the first to figure it out though!!


Eureka! My god dear boy, you might just go down in the history books as the most prominent genius of all time!



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by sirnex
Really? Re-read that sentence in question and explain to me where I wasn't 'coherent', what was wrong with it?




well now you've seen it used by a non-creationist to describe the attitude you described.


Well that is certainly interesting, what are your basic problems with the observations leading to the theory of the process?


i never said i had a problem with any observations or theories of a process. i said i call people "evolutionist" because they treat evolution as an article of faith. i couldn't comprehend your question because i had no idea what it was related to.


Your right, you didn't mention my two examples, but taken into context of your initial statement that the supernatural is universal was to point out that no, not everything appears to be a fundamental universal thing like the need for food, water, sex or shelter as you liked to describe it.


yeah, this is more gibberish, i have no idea what you're saying here.

actually, i'm just going to back away slowly, i'm wasting my time and i think you're getting a bit upset.



posted on Oct, 26 2009 @ 12:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by pieman
so why is there more than one type of whale?


swfsc.noaa.gov...

en.wikipedia.org... - Sympatric

en.wikipedia.org...

As you can see, there are not many types of whales, compared to for example fish or other mammals, because they are younger and indeed their environment doesnt have so many niches. But that doesnt mean it has none!
Oceans cover majority of the Earth, so sheer distance, warmer and colder areas, coastal and deep areas and various food sources are more than enough for speciation. Oceans are actually very diverse..

Simple enough?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join