Was Man evolved only on earth and by only one thread?

Lack of evidence is being eroded as time goes on and we find more fossils. Also we are going 'back' and reexamining fossils and coming to different conclusions. We have barely scratched this ol' earth looking for fossils. Tectonic plate movement, volcanic occurances and glacial eras have a tendancy to 'erase' some of the fossils. Elephants do not have three ears becuase there is no survival need to have three so they did not evolve them. No our planet was not part of a mega world that blew up into smaller worlds, kinda leaves it rather tough for anything to survive. yes we did evolve from a common ancestor if you go back far enough and as we find more fossils to link together the chain. After all evolution is simply a species adapting it's form to survive the enviroment it lives in. With some mutations thrown in from possibly to much radiation in the soil due to radioactive materials being close to the surface and/or heavy solar radation. This planet has not always had enough protection from solar energy not to mention higher than 'normal' solar storms and flares.

The lack of fossil evidence isn't a surprise, it's the fact that we have much at all that's surprising, considering the time scales involved. For example, everyone thinks they know what a T Rex looks like, and probably thinks it's a common fossil. In fact there are only 7 T Rex skeletons known (unless more have been found since I last checked) and only 1 even nearly complete. The fossil record only confirms the theory of evolution. What you want, I suspect, is to debunk the theory by pointing out the inevitable gaps and saying 'we cant be sure!' If you want to debunk the theory of evolution using fossil's, you need to find a fossil rabbit in the Cretaceous period strata.

As for the millions of mutated species, look around you! Everything alive today is a success story. It's made it through deep time and is still alive, so each change that has occurred has been, by definition, a success. Also, the ones that have not made it were not necessarily failures, but likely couldn't adapt to environmental changes fast enough. Or, if you prefer, could not mutate fast enough. Thats what Darwin meant by the mutability of species.

Interestingly, the latest idea's are that after each major extinction, think the end of the dinosaurs for example, there has been an explosion of species to fill the vacant evolutionary 'spaces', and the belief is that our ancestors broke away from the other primates at the last minor extinction event. (The last 'major event was the KT or Cretaceous-Tertiary extinction event)

Our latest estimate is that 90% of all species that have ever lived are extinct. Bear in mind that we know of at least 350 thousand species of beetle alone, and that they are the size of most of the species missing from the fossil record, and you should have an idea of the scales involved.

And by the way, we DON'T rely solely on fossils to confirm evolutionary theory.

A gap in our knowledge should be regarded as an opportunity to research and increase our knowledge, not used as a crutch to try and discredit all we know after years of hard work.

Where are all these other millions if not trillions of mutated species

One only has to look at the avatars in CR4 to find them....

That's true, I've been extinct for years!

There's also a Star Trek problem: all higher-level life forms are perhaps assumed to be humanoid, because human actors have been needed to play them (apart from the Horta). There is possibly an assumption that humanoids are the most advanced life forms available, which may not necessarily be true due to a lack of communications, though SETI is working on it.

Should the human continue on its path towards extinction then other life forms will evolve to supersede it. What about bats instead?

Interesting topic! Could boldly go where no-one has gone before...

My money's on the cockroach, they will survive the end of the world 99 times out of a hundred.

Seems they died.

I'm sure the 3 eared Elephant illustration was meant to be funny...but.

No! 3 ears are not better than 1 in terms of directional location, especially when there is some control over the ears (mine waggle independently in a most fetching and catly manner ideal for locating rodents)

There is also nowhere sensible to mount the 3rd ear without compromising other functions. Maybe stick it above the arse?

Reckon you'd soon find yourself up against a 3-eared rodent requiring triplicate stealth.

Actually concerning the 3 eared elephant I could've said a one eared (or 10 legged for that matter) to which you would answer two are better than one. Same logic for 3 better than 2.

In fact GPS proves that.. 3 references provide more exact locational data although 2 give you a less approximate location. Yeah.. and where are all the creatures with an eye in the back of their heads. Thats for sure early warning if I ever heard of it and logically much more surviveable. Still looking for Dem Bones Dem Bones... Dem Fossil Bones! We are but a tiny tiny speck of dust in the universe of matter.

Same logic for 3 better than 2.

No that doesn't follow ...if it did then 100 is better than two and 1000 better than 100...this is just wooly thinking.

No three isn't better.

Consider pradator and prey.

A cat knows where it is looking for prey and has two directional ears it can adjust to search in the area of interest.

A rabbit may be attacked from any direction (including above) similarly it has two directional ears with which it can scan the surroundings over the danger area. This combination of two directional and controlled ears gives perfectly adequate and accurate information. A third ear would not help.

If you had argued for any number of ears I would still argue for two.

Wow, a whole mess of misconceptions leading to a hypothesis based on no evidence whatsoever....

Can I vote this thread off-topic? Maybe we should ask the moderators for a "pseudoscience button".

Which bit?

Consider that there are 50,000 to 140,000 genes in human DNA, and humans and chimps, 2 different species who share common ancestry share >98% same genes. So at most they differ by only 1,000 to 2,800 genes. Many species are even more closely related. So your estimates of millions or trillions of mutations to get from one species to another are way too high. Also, there is no lack of fossil evidence. Fossils of hominids that are in between homo sapiens and our "ape-like" ancestors have been found so there is no "missing link" anymore. I think given the vastness of space and the amount of time needed and difficulty to cross it that the probability that life started elsewhere and moved here to be much lower than it started and evolved here.

Well put!

Does this reflect on another thread about human space exploration. Is the liklihood of any of us ending up on other planets equally slim?

Do I unpack?

It depends, Is your glass is half full or half empty?

My glass needs filling, to the top thank you, and I want a bigger glass!

Good question! How many different combinations of 2800 genes are there? 2800x 2800 = 7.4 million right there alone. What is 2800^{2800 (} to the 2800 power)? Is it trillions? But even in the lowest (wrong estimate) where are all the fossils from 7.4million - the one miracle thread that made it to us? So you see its way to statistically impossibel for there to be only one or two threads and also there has to be fossil evidence to support all the 99.999 % extinct versions that maybe only lasted a few thousand years or less.

You're confusing gene types with gene variants and phenotypes with genotypes so your reply makes absolutely no sense. If you're going to talk science please learn something about it.

If you perhaps know everything about genes and the tremendous trillions of combinations how come we never heard of you before?