Loverly … I feel ‘all twinkly’ now …
- What are the plants eaten by if there are no animals to eat them yet?
- How does a plant turn into an animal?
- What about cremated animals/humans, they don’t go into the soil, so do they not contribute anything to evolution?
- Humans come from eggs & sperm, not soil chemicals?
-
If they are not eaten, they contribute to the “circle of life” by seeding, withering and dying and once more becoming part of the soil.
-
It doesn’t “turn into an animal” it is absorbed by the animal and is used as fuel or protein for growth or is jettisoned as waste.
-
They don’t contribute to evolution, but they do contribute to the “circle of life.” A burnt body gives up its water and its oxygen to the atmosphere (plants “breathe in” carbon dioxide and “breathe out” oxygen. Solid products (ash) find their way (eventually) back into the earth.
-
We are what we eat. The food we eat (whether meat or veg) comes originally from the earth in the form of plants. A foetus gets its nourishment from its mother via the placenta. Once it is born it initially gets its food from its mother’s breast. Once weaned it eats food which down the line originates from the earth. Our bodies are made up from the nourishment we put into them (including the sperm and the egg). When we die, our bodies decay (or are cremated) and find their way back to the earth so that the cycle/circle of life continues.
Darwin Awards 2013 submission;
Ecco L’allegro Saldatore
2013 Darwin Award Nominee
Confirmed True by Darwin
(5 Feb 2013, São Paulo, Brazil) Mechanic Sérgio A. Rosa, 49, was welding a gas tanker that, curiously, exploded, sending his remains flying 400 meters through the air.
Comments: “A flammable materials tanker is like a gun.
Never consider it empty, or you’ll pay the price.”
“Did his life flash before his eyes?”
Typical response that can be expected from people who are not enlightened - pollute the earth and than not happy must also destroy nature, chop down trees so we can send a " congratulations card.
I think you have proved my point Jim 
Do not forget seth I also got a smart phone which makes the child is all knowing
"but you cannot get something from nothing, only from what exists" how then do you explain Virgin Mary and the Miraculous conception ?
I like We are the guests at the table of life, but soon to be the hosts.
Would you like to trade for
Life is short, but there is always time enough for courtesy
Somehow this does not feel like home - I seem to be always lost here 
BIB: those are the lines along which my thoughts travel - have we ‘changed’ the environment to suit our needs so that evolution (for the human being) is no longer necessary or even thought to be needed? I know we are, generally, taller now that we used to be due to better living conditions but has much else changed?
Abby yes we are reusable, we return to the earth as dust or ashes, nutrients for other forms of life which as it progresses once again returns, Just like any other form of life. We live in a self sustaining world, marvelous.
I feel at home anywhere, as long as the tucker is free and tasty.
[/B]
I was wrong about clothing. Here’s a better description of adaptation in the framework of climate change.
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/090501_climatechange
“The word adapt has different meanings in everyday language and in evolutionary biology. In common language, we might say that we adapt to warm weather by wearing light-colored clothes and drinking lots of water. Used in this way, adapting often means changing one’s behavior to suit the circumstances. But in evolutionary biology, the term has a precise — and different — meaning. In evolution, to adapt means to experience natural selection that improves the function of a trait in a particular environment — i.e., to evolve via natural selection. Swapping a dark sweater for a light t-shirt is not adaptation in an evolutionary sense since it involves no evolution at all. The process of evolutionary adaptation is one experienced by whole populations over many generations, not by an individual organism over the course of a sweltering afternoon (or a lifetime, for that matter).
Evolutionary biology has a special term to describe changes in an individual organism over the course of its lifetime: phenotypic plasticity. That’s a mouthful, but the idea is straightforward. An organism’s phenotype is simply its set of features, and to be plastic means to be moldable or changeable — so phenotypic plasticity just means that an organism’s features can be molded, or influenced to some degree, by its environment. You can think of it as the “nurture” side of the nature/nurture debate. The concept encompasses all sorts of changes to individual organisms, including developmental changes (e.g., an organism reaching a larger body size if it gets good nutrition as a juvenile, but reaching a smaller size on poor nutrition), behavioral changes (e.g., a polar bear eating goose eggs instead of seals, if seals become hard to catch and eggs are plentiful), and physical changes (e.g., a rabbit that grows white fur in the winter and brown fur in the summer). Phenotypic plasticity includes any sort of change to an individual that isn’t caused by changes in its genes.”
Yes indeed. Kinda adds weight to my argument that we simply alter our surroundings than adapt ourselves anymore. Evolution comes from strife and hardship doesn’t it over a long period by successive generations, or by a distinct need or threat? The human race in civilised society is hardly under duress from any of that. Intellectually something might develop over a long period maybe. We do seem to yearn for a greater purpose. Who knows.
Adaption and Evolution, it seems all forms of life adapt to their where they live, but as far as one species ‘evolving’ into another is far from proven.
Hmm! My dear seth 
Why do you look like a rabbit then 
Is that adaptation from where you live
Species change happens all the time. Evolution is what modern biology is based on. Look at the definition of theory. Or this cut and past on evolution as fact and theory from this wiki link.
"Many scientists and philosophers of science have described evolution as fact and theory, a phrase which was used as the title of an article by Stephen Jay Gould in 1981. He describes fact in science as meaning data, not absolute certainty but “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of such facts. The facts of evolution come from observational evidence of current processes, from imperfections in organisms recording historical common descent, and from transitions in the fossil record. Theories of evolution provide a provisional explanation for these facts.[1]
Each of the words ‘evolution’, ‘fact’ and ‘theory’ has several meanings in different contexts. Evolution means change over time, as in stellar evolution. In biology it refers to observed changes in organisms, to their descent from a common ancestor, and at a technical level to a change in gene frequency over time; it can also refer to explanatory theories such as Darwin’s theory of natural selection which explain the mechanisms of evolution. Fact can mean to a scientist a repeatable observation that all can agree on; it can mean something that is so well established that nobody in a community disagrees with it; it can also refer to the truth or falsity of a proposition. To the public, theory can mean an opinion or conjecture (“it’s only a theory”), but in the scientific world it has a much stronger connotation of “well-substantiated explanation”. With this number of choices, people often end up talking past each other, and meanings become the subject of linguistic analysis.
Evidence for evolution continues to be accumulated and tested. The scientific literature includes statements by evolutionary biologists and philosophers of science demonstrating some of the different perspectives on evolution as fact and theory."
Abby you are delving into my inner, self protective, reasoning.:
But just for you only:-D My sub conscious knew that everyone loves cute rabbits, {Roasted, fried, stewed,etc} some even love them as pets.
No they are scarce here by the beach, one comes in from the neighbours a black one, for a feed, it loves circling the ducks that fly in, but doesn’t harm them.
A wiki link and cut and paste about human evolution,
"Divergence of the human clade from other Great Apes
Species close to the last common ancestor of gorillas, chimpanzees and humans may be represented by Nakalipithecus fossils found in Kenya and Ouranopithecus found in Greece. Molecular evidence suggests that between 8 and 4 million years ago, first the gorillas, and then the chimpanzees (genus Pan) split off from the line leading to the humans; human DNA is approximately 98.4% identical to that of chimpanzees when comparing single nucleotide polymorphisms (see human evolutionary genetics). The fossil record of gorillas and chimpanzees is limited. Both poor preservation (rain forest soils tend to be acidic and dissolve bone) and sampling bias probably contribute to this problem.
Other hominins likely adapted to the drier environments outside the equatorial belt, along with antelopes, hyenas, dogs, pigs, elephants, and horses. The equatorial belt contracted after about 8 million years ago. There is very little fossil evidence for the split of the hominin lineage from the lineages of gorillas and chimpanzees. The earliest fossils that have been argued to belong to the human lineage are Sahelanthropus tchadensis (7 Ma) and Orrorin tugenensis (6 Ma), followed by Ardipithecus (5.5–4.4 Ma), with species Ar. kadabba and Ar. ramidus;"<<
~>“Human evolution is the evolutionary process leading up to the appearance of modern humans. While it began with the last common ancestor of all life, the topic usually covers only the evolutionary history of primates, in particular the genus Homo, and the emergence of Homo sapiens as a distinct species of hominids (or “great apes”). The study of human evolution involves many scientific disciplines, including physical anthropology, primatology, archaeology, linguistics, evolutionary psychology, embryology and genetics.[1]”<~
and it has not stopped yet for Homo sapiens, next Homo? or extinction? 
We all believe one way or another, as yet there is no evidence [proof] of changing from one species to another, over the years their has been various attempts to prove evolution, with some ridiculous ‘evidence’ as just lately where scientists have a new theory that [B]It was the apes that evolved from humans[B]Who hasn’t seen the line up of 8 figures, from the 'Heidelberg man through 6 others to modern man, all proven wrong. With all the searching and digging no missing link.Why is it so hard to accept we are who we are, a species of our own.
There is no “missing link” that term means nothing, there are missing Links (plural). The idea that there is one link that proves or disproves the evolution of man is faulty reasoning.
They find different hominids that could or could not be in the human linage or are branches that became extinct.
And the illustration is just an illustration, a picture to help you or other people understand the concept, it does not disprove anything. The article itself explains the current thinking and debate.
Read the article. You are denying the scientific method.
We are a “species of our own” but we had to come from something.
Over the years there has been various subjects on a ‘missing link’ the changing from another species to human, nothing as yet. what has been produced has soon been proven false What people choose to believe is up to them.
Yes we are species of our own and you do have a choice to believe what you wish about our origin. Each species to their own.
Do you know what a species is? Or a sub species? What you are writing makes me think you don’t understand or do not want to understand those concepts.
The use of “missing link” has been used in science fiction films and TV dramas. I see some magazine articles using that term. Scientists don’t use the term.
Missing link is a non-scientific term for any transitional fossil, especially one connected with human evolution; see Transitional fossil - Missing links and List of transitional fossils - Human evolution.<
The point is there are missing links, not a missing link. Even with the missing intermediate fossils the relationships with he other fossils are pretty clear. We have ancestors who were not Homo sapiens and Homo sapiens will evolve into something else if we do not go extinct.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Missing_Link
You can believe anything but facts are facts. Or is your view of this faith based?