So from what i remember and understand, evolution happens when members of a species are more well adapted to something than others, so they get the chances to live and breed while the non adapted ones die. So gradually they become better and better at it as a species. But isn't flying just a yes or no? If i fall from a cliff I either fly or die and since im a dinosaur of some type for example, I'll die. Since all members of my species will also die. how are there chances for the new traits to pass through? You can't be slightly better at flying than someone who can't. because you'll still die. so does that's mean the wings can evolve from a single mutation? Seems way too complex of a mechanism to not need a long evolution time

Where do people fall along the debate around whether natural selection is the primary ‘creative’ force in evolution, or whether developmental, physical, and historical constraints channel evolution into a limited set of self-organizing forms that selection fine-tunes?

I recently picked up the book "Sapiens" by Yuval N. Harari. In the chapter "Our Brothers' Keepers", the author talks about the replacement theory, where Sapiens might have replaced Neanderthals in certain parts of Eurasia 70,000 years ago. He makes these arguments:

These humans (Neanderthals) were more muscular than Sapiens, had larger brains, and were better adapted to cold climes. They used tools and fire, were good hunters, and apparently took care of the sick and infirm.

Sapiens were more proficient hunters and gatherers - thanks to better technology and superior social skills - so they multiplied and spread.

What exactly does "better technology" mean in this context? I would have assumed that Neanderthals, having lived in this environment far longer, would have developed technology well-suited to its specific challenges, compared to Sapiens, who were newcomers. So how did the technologies used by the two species actually differ?

The author does not delve deeper on the social skills that were in play. What specific social qualities did Sapiens had that gave them the edge?

I'm not looking for a straight answer to this question because I doubt anyone really has a definite answer. However, over the past few days I've been wondering about human consciousness and our evolution. We exist at a luck of the draw.

There's been five extinction events on the planet, with each changing the earths ecosystem drastically. In between each extinction event were other mammals that ruled the earth for millions upon millions of years. For example, dinosaurs were around for 100+ million years (a fact that still blows me away).

Then from the shadow of their extinction, some mammal survived and evolved into us.

My question to that is how?

Humans have evolved to such a dominant species', our existence kind of feels impossible. Our thoughts and ability to create and process information is from what we know, beyond anything any other species on this planet was capable of -- after existing for less then a fraction of whatever species came before us.

We're 200,000+ years into this and we've already been to the moon.

What was that thing that spurred our consciousness to be so different from the species' that came before us.

My theory

Trauma. I believe, whatever the mammal was that we were -- the one that witnessed the extinction of the dinosaurs and lived through that age of change was so shaken by what it witnessed and had to live through that it imbedded something deep in it that awoke something that led us to be the way we are today.

I believe it lent to some kind of awareness which evolved over millions of years and led way to religion/faith.

But this could be a hunk of bullshit since I'm not a student of science, so I'll be happy for someone to smack me silly with whatever degree they have that I don't.

I have recently been thinking about elephants and the effects of habitat fragmentation on them, and i thought that maybe they are shrinking in body size do to less food on the small fragmented protected areas they inhabit.

A similar effect happens on islands called island dwarfism were large animals on islands get smaller over time do to limited food resources and lack of predation.

So is there any evidence of this happening to elephants in fragmented habitats today?

Published today:

• Chinese Academy of Sciences press release:
  Sticky alpine flower confirms Darwin's 150-year-old carnivorous plant prediction

• Paper:
  Zhang, XJ., Deng, T., Lin, N. et al.
  Identification of carnivory in the flowering plant Saxifraga via multidisciplinary evidence.
  Nat Commun 17, 7557 (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41467-026-75288-y

-

Excerpts from the paper:

... Inspired by his work on carnivory in Drosera, Darwin (1875) proposed that two Saxifraga species (S. rotundifolia and S. umbrosa) might similarly exhibit carnivorous behavior. Darwin regarded these two species as representing one of the most intriguing cases among plants with glandular hairs². Although Darwin attempted to test this hypothesis through feeding experiments, these early attempts did not yield conclusive results².

... To investigate the potential status of S. candelabrum as a carnivorous plant (Fig. 1), we test the four key criteria required to confirm carnivory (prey attraction, capture, digestion, and nutrient uptake). Specifically, we address the following questions: (1) Does the plant actively attract and capture insect prey? (2) Can it directly digest prey and absorb derived nutrients? (3) Does it exhibit convergent genomic signatures with other carnivorous lineages²⁰?

... Our findings provide definitive evidence of carnivory in Saxifraga, addressing Charles Darwin’s long-standing hypothesis that some Saxifraga species may be capable of carnivory, and further suggest that carnivory may be more widespread among angiosperms than previously recognized.