Non-controversial science news.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Do slime moulds no longer adapt to new pathogens? Have there been no new species / sub-species of Coelocanth in the last few million years? Evolution doesn't have to be in huge leaps. That is one of the things that cretinists always get wrong with their "Why are there still monkeys?" bollocks. Evolution doesn't cease simply because a creature is extremely well adapted to its niche and has no need for major restructuring. Small aspects are evolving constantly.

Micro-evolution is occurring all the time - even in humans - we are a lot more resistant to bubonic plague than we once were, and asian flu, thanks to the millions that left the gene pool.

While it is true that the first, recognisable slime moulds evolved many hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not true that those that are around now have not evolved since.

That's just maintaining, IMHO. Not evolving. (Now comes the argument about what "evolving" means. )

[Xamonas Chegwé]

Do slime moulds no longer adapt to new pathogens? Have there been no new species / sub-species of Coelocanth in the last few million years? Evolution doesn't have to be in huge leaps. That is one of the things that cretinists always get wrong with their "Why are there still monkeys?" bollocks. Evolution doesn't cease simply because a creature is extremely well adapted to its niche and has no need for major restructuring. Small aspects are evolving constantly.

Micro-evolution is occurring all the time - even in humans - we are a lot more resistant to bubonic plague than we once were, and asian flu, thanks to the millions that left the gene pool.

While it is true that the first, recognisable slime moulds evolved many hundreds of millions of years ago, it is not true that those that are around now have not evolved since.

That's just maintaining, IMHO. Not evolving. (Now comes the argument about what "evolving" means. )

Then, your onion, humble though it might be, is wrong.

Evolution is adaptation to a changing environment through natural selection. That can be on a macro or micro level but both are still evolution. Just standing still in this dangerous, everything-eats-everything-else world of ours (maintaining as you term it) requires continuous adaptation.

You are referring to speciation I believe. This is a separate process, closely allied to evolution, but not the same thing. Evolution tends to take an "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" attitude (if you will forgive the run-away personification.)

[ScholasticSpastic]

Once again, it's all been covered by the time I stumble back onto the scene.

So all I'm going to say here is Word, XC!

Evolution can be defined several ways, with the most general definition being change in allele frequency in a population over time. By that definition, there is never any end to evolution as no population ever ceases to endure mutations and selection events. It doesn't matter if an organism looks the same and eats the same foods the same ways, it's been evolving.

[Trolldor]

I know that, I just meant I don't know if our dominance over the entire planet is a sign of prowess or not. We seem to be the most evolved species on the planet so far.

T-rex was highly evolved. But the sauropods weren't cheering when he came along.

Maybe the ends justifies the means Was T-rex more important to the evolutionary scale than his victims?

It's not really a fair analogy, though, as T-rex didn't follow the same patterns as human beings do.

We are hardly 'more evolved'. We have plenty far to go.