File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
If a species becomes extinct, is it possible for the same species to arise later? I don't see why this would be impossible, just extremely unlikely. I'm not talking about convergent evolution.
>> Anonymous
anything's possible. A species that died out because of environmental stimuli could theoretically evolve again in a different environment, but the chances against it are astronomical.
>> Anonymous
the chances of it being genetically identical to the original species would be vainshingly small. another species in the same niche may well evolve to have very similar characteristics and behaviour but have very little relation to the original.
>> vance !YVKonataVQ
     File :-(, x)
There's that saying that goes something like "If you lock some monkeys in a room with a type writer they will eventually write the works of Shakespeare". Note the word "eventually", because it could take thousands, millions, billions of years for this to occur. The quote is more about the idea that given anything and an infinite amount of time, anything can happen.

So, imagine you have to write a report for a class, for example on the theory of evolution. Now imagine that this report has to be 500 pages long. Now imagine that there are an infinite number of students that have the same assignment and they have an infinite amount of time to complete it. You will, eventually, end up with at least one copy of YOUR initial 500 page report. But the chances are so slim that they only become feasible given an infinite amount of time.
>> Anonymous
It would be mathematically impossible. The only situation I can think of where this might occur is in cases where two distinct but closely related species overlap and produce a viable hybrid species. If that species dies off fairly quickly and the founding species still exist then recreation of the species is a possibility. Of course, taxonomic terms aren't concrete or definitive, so it could easily be argued that the three species were, in fact, sub-species of a single species rather than three valid species.
>> Anonymous
>>244207
>>244223

Also for it to *not* be convergent evolution the same ancestral species would have to still exist. However normally when populations it's because of environmental pressure that prevented them from surviving the way they were, causing the unadapted to die off. This is also usually sped up by not only the environment but also the newly adapted animals out competing for the same resources.

Small differences (like phenotype) have been known to revert or repeat an example being those moths in the UK (god help me I can't remember the name) that went from pale colored to dark gray when all of london was covered in soot, than back to pale again when the British got a handle on pollution. That said those genes were likely still in a small percentage of the population.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
oh hai guise
>> Anonymous
>>244248
Look! a dahnuhsour!
>> Anonymous
>>244248
In Jurassic Park the clones were genetically engineered using DNA from frogs and such, and so weren't genetically the same as the species they were trying to recreate. I also don't think cloning would qualify as a species 'arising'.
>> Anonymous
>>244263
The creatures in Jurassic Park were not dinosaurs, they were theme park monsters.

(the only good quote from Jurassic Park 3)
>> Anonymous
Yes, God could choose to make another of an animal that has been removed.
>> Anonymous
This theory might actually lead somewhere because it's for a fact that it can happen with time. Anything can happen over time? Not anything there has to be a reason behind it. But the theory of one species arising again can indeed happen because evolution is always occurring and it can be compared to a cycle. The only problem is time because evolution is such a long process with millions of years. So kudos to whomever thought of this theory because it's very intellectual.
>> fuD
All arguments are squished by the fact that the universe is infinite and anything can will and has happened.

and i forget the name but the donkey cross with a horse can die out and come back..
>> Anonymous
If God felt like creating one and extinguishing one then he can create another if he goddahm feels like it.
>> Anonymous
Mules cannot reproduce successfully. The offspring dies.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244344
Genetics, Evolution, and Statistical probability DO NOT WORK THAT WAY.
>> Anonymous
>>244349
In very rare cases there are (documented) instances of fertile mules. It's just very rare.

I think there is one currently in Colorado or something.
>> Anonymous
>>244346
umm we dont actually know the universe is infinite thats a logical assumption, one theory is that the universe is not infinite but constantly growing.
>> Anonymous
>>244223

If everyone had an infinite amount of time to complete an assignment, nobody would do it.
>> Anonymous
David Quamman is an amazing writer.
>> Anonymous
I wonder what would happen if those monkies wrecked all those typewriters before they finish typing out Shakesphere...
>> Anonymous
>>244223

You don't need infinite time at all. If you have an infinite amount of students writing a 500 page essay in, say, 10 minutes, there would be an exact copy of your essay an infinite amount of times.
>> Anonymous
>>244548

Yea I don't think monkeys at present could write Shakespeare, even given an infinite amount of time.
>> Anonymous
>>244202

OP, the answer is no. Once a trait is lost, it can never re-evolve in the same way. You can broaden that to cover a whole species.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244202
It is likely that evolution will have similar results under similar conditions, but it's not possible to have 1:1 similar species.
>> Jesus H. Christ !!nwi78PCb+iZ
>>244553

In real life it isn't... but imagine... an infinite number of monkeys, writing infinitely...

By all laws of probability, eventually they would reproduce Shakespeare and write an 8th Harry potter book.
>> Anonymous
>>244553
>Yea I don't think monkeys at present could write Shakespeare, even given an infinite amount of time.

Neither can the modern day writers write Shakespeare. ;)
>> Anonymous
>>244553

The point is that over the course of that INFINITE (note emphasis) amount of time, they would go through every concievable combination of letters and words, among those being the works of shakespeare.
>> Anonymous
>>244603

Shakespeare couldnt even write Shakespeare
Most of his shit was stolen.
>> Anonymous
>>244629
>>Most of his shit was stolen.

Quentin Tarantino of the 16th century
>> Anonymous
People seem to be forgetting that all this evolution business happened when we didn't get our greasy paws all over it, MANY YEARS before we became sentient and our industrial advances weren't threatening enough to kill things into extinction, like the dodo...

The reason we're so skeptical of evolution is that we've only been on this planet for, what, 2000 or so years? Nothings happened since then. At least, nothing but perhaps the birth of a new deadly insect or so, since they go through many more generations than anything else (well.. things visible to the naked eye.)

Given the harsh environments, perfect conditions, chance, and many years, evolution is, and always will be, happening. Slowly. In the least obvious ways.

Whatever lives longer..
>> Anonymous
>>244654

>2000 years
>Nothings happened since then

Oh wow. You have NO idea what you're talking about.
>> Anonymous
Evolution and creationism have nothing to do with each other.

Evolution does not explain how life started.
Creationism does not explain what happenned after life began.
>> Anonymous
>>244679

Yes, and Creationism is imaginary.
>> Anonymous
>>244679
>>Creationism does not explain what happenned after life began.

Yes it does. Adam and Eve's children fucked each other.
>> Anonymous
>>244685

How does that go again? something something put your sister too the test.
>> Anonymous
>>244202


Did NG actually run this? because if they did, they're awesome.
>> Anonymous
If humans never become extinct, would it possible for someone exactly like you (circumstances and society are all the same too) to exist again in the future after you die?
>> Anonymous
>>244706
In after an infinite number of times the universe expands and collapses, a planet with the same conditions and a sun about the same size and distance away will form, and from there I would imagine eventually an organism similiar to us will form.
>> Anonymous
>>244708
By collapsing, humans, by definition, would become extinct.
>> Anonymous
>>244673
Yeah he doesn't, from my experience I learned it was more over 10,000 years cro-magnons lived.
>> Anonymous
>>244709
Yes, but his question is after humans become extinct, can there be the exact species like us.
>> Anonymous
     File :-(, x)
>>244708

The theory you're citing there requires the universe to have a certain balance between mass and momentum in order for gravity to collect all matter/energy into a singularity (i.e. pre-big bang goodness)

Unfortunately the universe appears to be *accelerating* outward, so unless there are some unknown factors (which there may well be) we live in a one-shot universe, which will simply expand unto infinity.
>> Anonymous
Of course Darwin was wrong, he was drunk when he came up with that crazy idea.
>> Anonymous
Wow. This thread went is wandering all over without answering the OP's question concisely.

I think maybe; it would probably work something like with those moths that>>244229mentioned.

For most species on earth, 97% of their DNA has almost nothing to do with what they are now; it's mostly the DNA of every species that was involved in the production of the current species. It IS possible that a species could revert to a recent species it once was, but the chances of it happening naturally are slim.

tl;dr -> Possible, but slim.
>> Anonymous
>>244716
Ultimately everything in the universe will die a lonely and frigid death.