Duama449 wrote:
Chaz D wrote:
Well, since not many people have given their opinions on this, I might as well argue with myself. Here are some common misconceptions about evolution, and a Q & A session addressing what many people consider flaws in the theory.
If human beings evolved from apes, why are there still apes?
Well, as stated above, human beings did not evolve from apes, but alongside them. But even if this were the case, there is no reason a species would not remain roughly the same for hundreds of thousands of years provided it's well enough suited to a particular environment. If a species is successful enough in a given environment, natural selection is less focused as larged numbers of variants of that species survive, being that the animal does not evolve in a focused and obvious way. All it can do is become even better are living in it's current environment.
If what you say is true, then in theory can loch ness technically be a remnant of the dinosaurs, assuming it changed it's diet and eating habits to fit it's surroundings?
It would depend what you mean by 'remnant', really, as practically all land dwelling animals could technically be considered a 'remnant' of dinosaurs.
If you mean that it is a dinosaur itself, that kind of conflicts with the idea that it evolved into it's surroundings. Basically, it's either the last remaining member of a species of dinosaur (this is unlikely, as the features of the Loch Ness monster when sighted indicate that it has not really adapted as well as it could to it's environment - a water-dwelling creature does not need a long neck), a single dinosaur that somehow survived the last several million years alone and without a mate, or an entirely new species altogether.
But this is all speculation, based on the assumption that the Loch Ness monster exists.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
