Divergent Evolution Of New Species Is Not Genetically Expensive

You break it up because you are a scumbag who wants to drop context.

The okapi appears less similar to the giraffe than we do to chimpanzees or gorillas.
 
so out of all the creatures on the earth only an amoeba, an extinct lemur and homo sapiens have no diverging branches.......though to be fair, there actually ARE other amoebas and lemurs......just no other humans.....

Nobody said anything about them having no diverging branches. You really need to clean up your stupid comments. If you are asking for species that have not split into separate species, then the list is going to get a lot longer as most existing species have not split into diverging branches, yet. Again, why aren't there 4 species of polar bears?
 
No, it does not. It implies they are not a diverging branch. You have real problems with articulating concepts of order and you become easily confused by it.

I edited my previous post to include this.....I will repeat it here so you don't miss it....
Anagenesis, also known as "phyletic change", is the evolution of species involving an entire population rather than a branching event, as in cladogenesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anagenesis
 
you have not yet responded to my question in #94.....it is a key question and needs your response.....

Fuck you. Does divergence or speciation occur within a group or an individual? You have not given a straight answer yet.

I should have said...

Divergence or cladogenetic speciation is when a species splits into two or more descendant species.

But your question is just showing how thoroughly stupid and easily confused you are.

if homo sapiens is #1, who is #2?.......shucks, beetles got 37,000, we ought to at least have two.....

MORON, you are the one arguing that homo sapiens must have diverged, not me. I have been trying to get you to understand that it is possible there was no divergence and that all of homo erectus evolved via anagenetic change into homo sapiens.

One could argue all neanderthal, denisovans, and other homo species were all examples of divergence. That is what the recent Out of Africa model suggests, which you have claimed is the only possibility. The multiregional hypothesis would treat them as little more than subspecies all changing towards homo sapien.
 
I edited my previous post to include this.....I will repeat it here so you don't miss it....

I posted that before you???

It proves everything you have been arguing about evolution being divergence, wrong.

It does not change the problem in your question. You are demanding to know why humans have not diverged into different branches. To be the result of anagenetic change they should not be a diverging branch. It is not necessary that they be the source/parent of diverging branches. Dumbass!
 
yes, an amoeba and a lemur.....except there actually ARE other amoebas and lemurs......

It wasn't a lemur .

Again, it has happened in every species. We are still evolving as are all other species.

You are adding nothing new here. You have been proven wrong. Anagenetic or phyletic change is not impossible nor is it controversial. You are just a stupid and dishonest creationist desperately looking for flaws in the theory of evolution or to cherry pick the science so you can force it to fit your childish myths.
 
the evolution of every species is unbranched?.....so polar bears have no relation to grizzly bears?......none of the 37k beetles are related?......

That's not what I said. EVERY species on the planet has experienced evolution within the branch or phyletic change.

You are a pathetic fool who has no argument and relies on dishonestly misrepresenting those who have proven that your childish fairy tales are implausible.
 
Back
Top