Explain How A Copy Of Chares Darwin's Original Sketch Of A Phylogenetic Tree

[INSERT ILLUSTRATION 9a & 9b – place side-by-side]
Figure 9a. A copy of Chares Darwin’s original sketch of a hypothetical section of a phylogenetic tree.
Figure 9b. A copy of Chares Darwin’s original sketch of a hypothetical section of a phylogenetic tree with modifications made to show transitional species.

Evolutionary theory states that only species which are end points on a branch (i.e. the “end-point species” on Figure 9b) can theoretically exist today. Of course, many of these end-point-on-branch species would have gone extinct (such as tyrannosaurus rex and the dodo bird) without providing any descendants (hence they are the end-points of the branches). But, of course, many do exist today, like us humans. The points on the tree branches

Think about it. Homo sapiens’ closest ancestor would have presumably been relatively intelligent with many attributes similar to Homo sapiens – is it really conceivable that this species was completely wiped out (or rather completely changed) due to selection pressures or even through any other means? Even if they were outcompeted for resources by the evolving Homo sapiens species, and even if the evolving Homo sapiens were favoured in terms of disease, food, or sexual reproduction, is it not at all possible that some of the ancestral species may have continued to survive and reproduce with similar creatures ensuring the survival of their characteristics and attributes? Let’s say the evolving Homo sapiens species is a better hunter, is it not possible that the ancestral species could have sought alternative food sources and altered its diet or chosen less tasty or even less nutritious food not utilised by the evolving Homo sapiens species? Even though this food may lead to less favourable outcomes, it may not necessarily lead to the demise of the whole species. Australopithecus afarensis, which is one of the further distanced direct ancestors of us (according to evolutionary theory) is thought to have foraged for fruit, nuts, and seeds in a mixture of woodland and savannah, and possibly would have obtained animal protein from termites or birds'

If we consider the two distinct human races of black people and white people, we can clearly see that they can reproduce to create what is termed as a “mixed race” between the two races. So, we could say that through integration and mixing, two races have turned into three races. Now, in theory it is possible to turn these two races into just one race by ensuring that every black individual reproduces with a white individual thus creating one mixed race and eliminating the previous black race and white race. Of course, we think of this as being preposterous as it seems unfathomable that this would ever happen. However, this is what evolutionary theory proposes does happen and has happened. It proposes that one new feature or characteristic is passed on entirely and exclusively so that the older type goes out of existence completely, hence why we have no living ancestors. It is not difficult to see the strangeness of this presumption. It defies logic. Given, in this analogy there is no obvious evolutionary or survival advantage to being one race over the other, however, the analogy is useful in terms of thinking about the practicalities of what evolutionary theory proposes has happened in order to get to where we are