How do you define evolution?

[Polymath257]

Yes, ok, (thank you) but what's in-between these things (electrons) and how did they get there? Any knowledge about that?

It isn't clear what you are asking when you ask what is between them. Why do you think there is anything 'between' them?

Electrons are one of the fundamental subatomic particles. They are stable, so they do not decay. Also, except for some nuclear reactions, no new electrons are formed (more on this later). So almost all of the electrons that exist today have existed for most of the age of the universe.

Electrons are important because it is the sharing of electrons by atoms that is the essence of an atomic bond. The formation and breaking of atomic bonds is what happens in chemical reactions. So, when a molecule of water forms, there are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Electrons are shared between the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms, forming atomic bonds that keep the water molecule together.

Atoms are made from electrons on the outside and protons and neutrons in the nucleus at the center of the atom. Most of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus; the electrons contribute very little mass. The nucleus itself is very small, even in comparison to the size of an atom.

Each type of atom (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, etc) has a different number of protons in its nucleus (hydrogen has 1, oxygen has 8, carbon has 6, iron has 26, etc). The number of electrons surrounding the nucleus is (usually) the same as the number of protons in the nucleus. A chemical element is a material made from only one type of atom (so, oxygen gas is made only of oxygen atoms).

You can look at the periodic table to see a list of the different elements and their properties and relations.

Also in the nucleus, there are neutrons. it is possible for different atoms of the same type (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) to have different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. This is what makes different isotopes of the same element.

So, for example, carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus and 6 electrons surrounding that nucleus. But different isotopes of carbon can have 6, 7, or 8 neutrons. To designate the isotope, we use the chemical symbol (C=carbon, O=oxygen, Fe=Iron, etc) and the total number of protons and neutrons int eh nucleus. So, C-14 is a carbon nucleus. It will have 6 protons (because it is carbon) and 8 neutrons (6+8=14).

I want to talk about radioactivity,because it is very relevant for dating, but first I want to be clear that you understand these ideas.

Do you have any questions about this?

 

[Polymath257]

"yes, living things stay inside of their type. For example, whales are still mammals. They descended from mammals and are still mammals."

Technically that holds truth and not truth.

Something that wasn't a mammal became a mammal. It didn't stay within its type/group.

Except that the population that became mammals were all vertebrates. And they remained vertebrates. In becoming mammals, they *added* new characteristics, but still are part of the old group.

Anyways I think their arguement is something like this.....for example

You have a group of a specie and within that group overtime 30% get a mutation that allows them to survive at hotter temps and with less water. Over time its gets hotter and hotter with less water. Those with the mutation will survive fine(and their offspring with the mutation) while the others without the mutation eventually die off.
I think their arguement is yet those 30% didn't evolve to be a different species, they stayed the same species and used adaption.

And that is the first stage of evolution. let's make this a bit easier, though. Suppose that initial population split into two populations: one that lived in a hot climate and one that lived in a cold climate. Over time *both* populations will adapt to the environment they live in. Those in the cold climate will keep mutations helping survival in the cold climate and those in the hot climate will keep mutations helping survival in the hot climate.

Now, is it possible that after 5000 generations the two populations won't be able to interbreed? That they changed enough that those in the two populations cannot produce fertile offspring?

If that happens, you now have two different species. That is what it *means* to be different species: the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, go another 5000 generations. Now those in the hot climate will *look* different than those in the cold climate: different ears (large for the hot climate, small for the cold one), different adaptations for catching prey, different sized bodies, etc. The two species are diverging.

Now, suppose that the climates change. maybe the cold climate warms up and becomes a grassland and the hot climate gets wetter and becomes a forest. The populations adapt to the new conditions. After another 5000 generations, the population that was in the cold climate and now in the grassland has changed to be leaner to look over the grass, and the one in the forest (previously the how climate) have started climbing trees. The finger nails on them have changed: claws adapted to catching prey instead of being adapted to clinging onto bark. The tongues have changed: longer tongues to get insects out of trees, shorter ones to avoid the sharp edges of the grass.

Now the species don't look anything at all alike. They have adapted to two new environments. But the environments change again. And after another 5000 generations they look even less like each other. Maybe the grassland is now close to a lake and the population has become more adapted to the water. The population in the forest has produced a membrane between the arms and legs to allow gliding between trees.

That's what I'm getting out of it. In my opinion the millions of years time frame doesn't compute to them.

But that is a *short* period of time when it comes to evolution. Ten thousand years is the blink of an eye. A hundred thousand years allows for some interesting changes. A million allows for more changes. Ten million allows for enough that the results may not be classified in the same way.

 

[We Never Know]

Except that the population that became mammals were all vertebrates. And they remained vertebrates. In becoming mammals, they *added* new characteristics, but still are part of the old group.



And that is the first stage of evolution. let's make this a bit easier, though. Suppose that initial population split into two populations: one that lived in a hot climate and one that lived in a cold climate. Over time *both* populations will adapt to the environment they live in. Those in the cold climate will keep mutations helping survival in the cold climate and those in the hot climate will keep mutations helping survival in the hot climate.

Now, is it possible that after 5000 generations the two populations won't be able to interbreed? That they changed enough that those in the two populations cannot produce fertile offspring?

If that happens, you now have two different species. That is what it *means* to be different species: the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, go another 5000 generations. Now those in the hot climate will *look* different than those in the cold climate: different ears (large for the hot climate, small for the cold one), different adaptations for catching prey, different sized bodies, etc. The two species are diverging.

Now, suppose that the climates change. maybe the cold climate warms up and becomes a grassland and the hot climate gets wetter and becomes a forest. The populations adapt to the new conditions. After another 5000 generations, the population that was in the cold climate and now in the grassland has changed to be leaner to look over the grass, and the one in the forest (previously the how climate) have started climbing trees. The finger nails on them have changed: claws adapted to catching prey instead of being adapted to clinging onto bark. The tongues have changed: longer tongues to get insects out of trees, shorter ones to avoid the sharp edges of the grass.

Now the species don't look anything at all alike. They have adapted to two new environments. But the environments change again. And after another 5000 generations they look even less like each other. Maybe the grassland is now close to a lake and the population has become more adapted to the water. The population in the forest has produced a membrane between the arms and legs to allow gliding between trees.



But that is a *short* period of time when it comes to evolution. Ten thousand years is the blink of an eye. A hundred thousand years allows for some interesting changes. A million allows for more changes. Ten million allows for enough that the results may not be classified in the same way.

I agree. I simply gave my opinion of the millions of years (1 to whenever) and the mutations being acquired with every generation doesn't fully compute to some.

 

[YoursTrue]

There is absolutely no evidence that such a flood described as described in the Bible ever took place. In fact the geologic evidence worldwide including the Middle East has determined conclusively no such flood ever happened. I am a geologist with fifty years experience.

I think you might find this interesting, it's about unearthing a town archaeologists never knew was in existence. Egypt archaeologists uncover Christian town hidden among ancient ruins: 'Revolutionary' | Science | News | Express.co.uk

 

[We Never Know]

I think you might find this interesting, it's about unearthing a town archaeologists never knew was in existence. Egypt archaeologists uncover Christian town hidden among ancient ruins: 'Revolutionary' | Science | News | Express.co.uk

I think there are several towns/cities that were covered by sand/earth or water in the past 3000 years or more that we haven't found yet.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that the population that became mammals were all vertebrates. And they remained vertebrates. In becoming mammals, they *added* new characteristics, but still are part of the old group.



And that is the first stage of evolution. let's make this a bit easier, though. Suppose that initial population split into two populations: one that lived in a hot climate and one that lived in a cold climate. Over time *both* populations will adapt to the environment they live in. Those in the cold climate will keep mutations helping survival in the cold climate and those in the hot climate will keep mutations helping survival in the hot climate.

Now, is it possible that after 5000 generations the two populations won't be able to interbreed? That they changed enough that those in the two populations cannot produce fertile offspring?

If that happens, you now have two different species. That is what it *means* to be different species: the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, go another 5000 generations. Now those in the hot climate will *look* different than those in the cold climate: different ears (large for the hot climate, small for the cold one), different adaptations for catching prey, different sized bodies, etc. The two species are diverging.

Now, suppose that the climates change. maybe the cold climate warms up and becomes a grassland and the hot climate gets wetter and becomes a forest. The populations adapt to the new conditions. After another 5000 generations, the population that was in the cold climate and now in the grassland has changed to be leaner to look over the grass, and the one in the forest (previously the how climate) have started climbing trees. The finger nails on them have changed: claws adapted to catching prey instead of being adapted to clinging onto bark. The tongues have changed: longer tongues to get insects out of trees, shorter ones to avoid the sharp edges of the grass.

Now the species don't look anything at all alike. They have adapted to two new environments. But the environments change again. And after another 5000 generations they look even less like each other. Maybe the grassland is now close to a lake and the population has become more adapted to the water. The population in the forest has produced a membrane between the arms and legs to allow gliding between trees.



But that is a *short* period of time when it comes to evolution. Ten thousand years is the blink of an eye. A hundred thousand years allows for some interesting changes. A million allows for more changes. Ten million allows for enough that the results may not be classified in the same way.

OK, they say that ('they' means scientists I suppose) that the mental capacity and reasoning of hominids have increased, evidently meaning that homo "sapiens" are the what?? most intelligent? smartest? etc. You know, like the brain size is bigger. But just in case it's not, something 'happened' that made humans a little itty bit different in learning and creativity, such as: making clothing for themselves, morality depending on culture and thought process, writing, making videos, etc.
So in all those many, many years that scientists claim humans have been in existence, nothing has been written or noticed in real-time human history about any changes like from whatever was that so-called common ancestor of chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and of course, humans. OK, birds, snakes, and lions, too. No documentaries about that.
Now let me guess. Because those changes were small ? and took a lot of time so the gap was cemented where they could not interbreed, right? And, of course, humans (I guess gorillas, too) were just not smart enough or lived long enough (yes, gorillas don't write, do they?) to see this OR ... care about it. I guess. Maybe someone have found cave paintings done by -- gorillas?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think there are several towns/cities that were covered by sand/earth or water in the past 3000 years or more that we haven't found yet.

You have my word on it. I'm sure of it. My intuition tells me so. But! maybe I'm wrong, lol.

 

[YoursTrue]

Except that the population that became mammals were all vertebrates. And they remained vertebrates. In becoming mammals, they *added* new characteristics, but still are part of the old group.



And that is the first stage of evolution. let's make this a bit easier, though. Suppose that initial population split into two populations: one that lived in a hot climate and one that lived in a cold climate. Over time *both* populations will adapt to the environment they live in. Those in the cold climate will keep mutations helping survival in the cold climate and those in the hot climate will keep mutations helping survival in the hot climate.

Now, is it possible that after 5000 generations the two populations won't be able to interbreed? That they changed enough that those in the two populations cannot produce fertile offspring?

If that happens, you now have two different species. That is what it *means* to be different species: the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, go another 5000 generations. Now those in the hot climate will *look* different than those in the cold climate: different ears (large for the hot climate, small for the cold one), different adaptations for catching prey, different sized bodies, etc. The two species are diverging.

Now, suppose that the climates change. maybe the cold climate warms up and becomes a grassland and the hot climate gets wetter and becomes a forest. The populations adapt to the new conditions. After another 5000 generations, the population that was in the cold climate and now in the grassland has changed to be leaner to look over the grass, and the one in the forest (previously the how climate) have started climbing trees. The finger nails on them have changed: claws adapted to catching prey instead of being adapted to clinging onto bark. The tongues have changed: longer tongues to get insects out of trees, shorter ones to avoid the sharp edges of the grass.
...

But that is a *short* period of time when it comes to evolution. Ten thousand years is the blink of an eye. A hundred thousand years allows for some interesting changes. A million allows for more changes. Ten million allows for enough that the results may not be classified in the same way.

We know, don't we, that some 'things' disappeared. Dodo birds, for instance, right? According to what I read, these guys just weren't able to find better digs, their local habitats were being knocked out of existence, and I guess they weren't bright enough (?) to look for better landings. Now the question did arise on this website if they can be "brought back." Hmmm I wonder. From a website about the dodo birds:
Can we bring back the dodo?
“There is no point in bringing the dodo back,” Shapiro says. “Their eggs will be eaten the same way that made them go extinct the first time.” Revived passenger pigeons could also face re-extinction. Shapiro argues that passenger pigeon genes related to immunity could help today’s endangered birds survive."
Often asked: When did the last dodo bird die? - LONETREE LOFTS (riedelfamilyltl.com)
So then the question remains -- if people wanted to, could they bring the dodo bird back? Maybe another bird might evolve to become a dodo?

 

[YoursTrue]

It isn't clear what you are asking when you ask what is between them. Why do you think there is anything 'between' them?

Electrons are one of the fundamental subatomic particles. They are stable, so they do not decay. Also, except for some nuclear reactions, no new electrons are formed (more on this later). So almost all of the electrons that exist today have existed for most of the age of the universe.

Electrons are important because it is the sharing of electrons by atoms that is the essence of an atomic bond. The formation and breaking of atomic bonds is what happens in chemical reactions. So, when a molecule of water forms, there are two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom. Electrons are shared between the oxygen atom and the two hydrogen atoms, forming atomic bonds that keep the water molecule together.

Atoms are made from electrons on the outside and protons and neutrons in the nucleus at the center of the atom. Most of the mass of an atom is in the nucleus; the electrons contribute very little mass. The nucleus itself is very small, even in comparison to the size of an atom.

Each type of atom (hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, iron, etc) has a different number of protons in its nucleus (hydrogen has 1, oxygen has 8, carbon has 6, iron has 26, etc). The number of electrons surrounding the nucleus is (usually) the same as the number of protons in the nucleus. A chemical element is a material made from only one type of atom (so, oxygen gas is made only of oxygen atoms).

You can look at the periodic table to see a list of the different elements and their properties and relations.

Also in the nucleus, there are neutrons. it is possible for different atoms of the same type (carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, etc) to have different numbers of neutrons in their nucleus. This is what makes different isotopes of the same element.

So, for example, carbon has 6 protons in its nucleus and 6 electrons surrounding that nucleus. But different isotopes of carbon can have 6, 7, or 8 neutrons. To designate the isotope, we use the chemical symbol (C=carbon, O=oxygen, Fe=Iron, etc) and the total number of protons and neutrons int eh nucleus. So, C-14 is a carbon nucleus. It will have 6 protons (because it is carbon) and 8 neutrons (6+8=14).

I want to talk about radioactivity,because it is very relevant for dating, but first I want to be clear that you understand these ideas.

Do you have any questions about this?

You know, that's an interesting point. Excuse me if I haven't seen all your posts, I'm going to suggest to you that when you want an answer (if I can give one), you message me and give me post #. In the meantime, I'll answer you about the electron thing. There IS space small as it is, between these electrons, isn't there? I'm not sure, but I call the power that keeps them together, magnetism. I read about magnetism, and I could memorize answers if I had to take a test, but trust me on this -- so far I don't understand it. But then the question is: what is it? And so you may continue with telling me about how many protons and electrons there are in a molecule, and I find that interesting (to an extent), but -- they're not one on the other, are they? They are near each other, so there's something in between them. Space, is it called? And I do realize that if they were one on the other, it still wouldn't matter. I could analyze it or understand it maybe if I lived long enough, but -- does that prove there is not, was not, a force set up by a source of creative intelligence?

 

[Polymath257]

We know, don't we, that some 'things' disappeared. Dodo birds, for instance, right? According to what I read, these guys just weren't able to find better digs, their local habitats were being knocked out of existence, and I guess they weren't bright enough (?) to look for better landings. Now the question did arise on this website if they can be "brought back." Hmmm I wonder. From a website about the dodo birds:
Can we bring back the dodo?
“There is no point in bringing the dodo back,” Shapiro says. “Their eggs will be eaten the same way that made them go extinct the first time.” Revived passenger pigeons could also face re-extinction. Shapiro argues that passenger pigeon genes related to immunity could help today’s endangered birds survive."
Often asked: When did the last dodo bird die? - LONETREE LOFTS (riedelfamilyltl.com)
So then the question remains -- if people wanted to, could they bring the dodo bird back? Maybe another bird might evolve to become a dodo?

If we have DNA from the dodo birds and if it is of high enough quality and if we could get another bird to bring an egg to term, *maybe* we could get a dodo bird back. But it would rely on there being high quality DNA from one of the actual, dead dodo birds we have.

But yes, about 99.9% of the species that have lived on Earth have gone extinct.

Now, why was this relevant to the discussion?

 

[YoursTrue]

I think there are several towns/cities that were covered by sand/earth or water in the past 3000 years or more that we haven't found yet.

I do read books about history from time to time. (Yes, time is limited...) I see many say that there is yet much to be discovered. And which they absolutely do not know about, meaning cities, civilizations, etc. So thanks for your comment which is apparently and obviously true. Anyway, that discovery about the town in Egypt is surely interesting.

 

[Polymath257]

OK, they say that ('they' means scientists I suppose) that the mental capacity and reasoning of hominids have increased, evidently meaning that homo "sapiens" are the what?? most intelligent? smartest? etc. You know, like the brain size is bigger. But just in case it's not, something 'happened' that made humans a little itty bit different in learning and creativity, such as: making clothing for themselves, morality depending on culture and thought process, writing, making videos, etc.
So in all those many, many years that scientists claim humans have been in existence, nothing has been written or noticed in real-time human history about any changes like from whatever was that so-called common ancestor of chimps, bonobos, gorillas, and of course, humans. OK, birds, snakes, and lions, too. No documentaries about that.
Now let me guess. Because those changes were small ? and took a lot of time so the gap was cemented where they could not interbreed, right? And, of course, humans (I guess gorillas, too) were just not smart enough or lived long enough (yes, gorillas don't write, do they?) to see this OR ... care about it. I guess. Maybe someone have found cave paintings done by -- gorillas?

We've had writing for about 5000 years. The last common ancestor to other primates was around 8 million years ago.

Why would you expect anything to be written about them?

Other primates evolved in a different direction than humans. So?

 

[Polymath257]

You know, that's an interesting point. Excuse me if I haven't seen all your posts, I'm going to suggest to you that when you want an answer (if I can give one), you message me and give me post #. In the meantime, I'll answer you about the electron thing. There IS space small as it is, between these electrons, isn't there?

Yes and no. The problem is that quantum effects are relevant here and the idea of electrons as little balls or points or something like that is simply wrong. Instead of orbits or paths, it is more like you get an 'electron cloud'.

I'm not sure, but I call the power that keeps them together, magnetism. I read about magnetism, and I could memorize answers if I had to take a test, but trust me on this -- so far I don't understand it.

Keeps what together? The electrons? Actually, different electrons repel each other. It is their attraction to the protons in the nucleus that keeps the atoms together. And the force involved is called the electric force, which is different than the magnetic force, but related.

But then the question is: what is it? And so you may continue with telling me about how many protons and electrons there are in a molecule, and I find that interesting (to an extent), but -- they're not one on the other, are they? They are near each other, so there's something in between them. Space, is it called?

Yes, space. I'm not sure I see your question.

And I do realize that if they were one on the other, it still wouldn't matter. I could analyze it or understand it maybe if I lived long enough, but -- does that prove there is not, was not, a force set up by a source of creative intelligence?

Huh? there is no reason to think an intelligence set any of this up.

I am trying to get to the basics of radioactive dating. This is relevant for determining the dates of cave paintings, which is a topic you wanted to discuss.

 

[YoursTrue]

If we have DNA from the dodo birds and if it is of high enough quality and if we could get another bird to bring an egg to term, *maybe* we could get a dodo bird back. But it would rely on there being high quality DNA from one of the actual, dead dodo birds we have.

But yes, about 99.9% of the species that have lived on Earth have gone extinct.

Now, why was this relevant to the discussion?

Because -- it is said pertinent to the idea of evolution, that these species or whatever they're called mutated perhaps? so they could exist better. Would you call that survival of the fittest?
So let's take this in accord with the poor little or big dodo bird. I can only GUESS that their genes did not evolve (?) enabling them to survive. Or -- maybe that last egg was crushed after every other mateable bird was killed. Don't know. But looking at the concept then -- let's just say they couldn't figure it out to look for (as they say humans and others supposedly did) better habitat.

 

[Polymath257]

Because -- it is said pertinent to the idea of evolution, that these species or whatever they're called mutated perhaps? so they could exist better. Would you call that survival of the fittest?
So let's take this in accord with the poor little or big dodo bird. I can only GUESS that their genes did not evolve (?) enabling them to survive. Or -- maybe that last egg was crushed after every other mateable bird was killed. Don't know. But looking at the concept then -- let's just say they couldn't figure it out to look for (as they say humans and others supposedly did) better habitat.

Yes, the changes (human intervention) happened faster than mutations could adapt to them. And so they started dying off. They lived in an ecological niche and didn't manage to evolve out of it.

 

[We Never Know]

Except that the population that became mammals were all vertebrates. And they remained vertebrates. In becoming mammals, they *added* new characteristics, but still are part of the old group.



And that is the first stage of evolution. let's make this a bit easier, though. Suppose that initial population split into two populations: one that lived in a hot climate and one that lived in a cold climate. Over time *both* populations will adapt to the environment they live in. Those in the cold climate will keep mutations helping survival in the cold climate and those in the hot climate will keep mutations helping survival in the hot climate.

Now, is it possible that after 5000 generations the two populations won't be able to interbreed? That they changed enough that those in the two populations cannot produce fertile offspring?

If that happens, you now have two different species. That is what it *means* to be different species: the inability to interbreed and produce fertile offspring.

Now, go another 5000 generations. Now those in the hot climate will *look* different than those in the cold climate: different ears (large for the hot climate, small for the cold one), different adaptations for catching prey, different sized bodies, etc. The two species are diverging.

Now, suppose that the climates change. maybe the cold climate warms up and becomes a grassland and the hot climate gets wetter and becomes a forest. The populations adapt to the new conditions. After another 5000 generations, the population that was in the cold climate and now in the grassland has changed to be leaner to look over the grass, and the one in the forest (previously the how climate) have started climbing trees. The finger nails on them have changed: claws adapted to catching prey instead of being adapted to clinging onto bark. The tongues have changed: longer tongues to get insects out of trees, shorter ones to avoid the sharp edges of the grass.

Now the species don't look anything at all alike. They have adapted to two new environments. But the environments change again. And after another 5000 generations they look even less like each other. Maybe the grassland is now close to a lake and the population has become more adapted to the water. The population in the forest has produced a membrane between the arms and legs to allow gliding between trees.



But that is a *short* period of time when it comes to evolution. Ten thousand years is the blink of an eye. A hundred thousand years allows for some interesting changes. A million allows for more changes. Ten million allows for enough that the results may not be classified in the same way.

I also think what may confuse some is what what we call rapid evolution where two groups are isolated from each other and can no longer breed and look no different but are considered different species.

 

[YoursTrue]

We've had writing for about 5000 years. The last common ancestor to other primates was around 8 million years ago.

Why would you expect anything to be written about them?

Other primates evolved in a different direction than humans. So?

: You know this about the last common ancestor to other primates was around 8 million years ago how? By the way, what I was saying is that over the many more thousands of years before the 5,000 said to be of writing, there are, of course, conjectures as to why, but I can only guess what some might think: that there was no "need" for writing during those many more than 5,000 years humans were supposed to have been around in their current type state (you know, brains and all). I'm sure those who believe homo sapians have been around for much longer than 5-6,000 years will come up with answers
Doing a little reading about this, "Homo sapiens, who are the modern form of humans evolved 300,000 years ago from Homo erectus. Human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago." So -- they say -- human civilizations started forming around 6,000 years ago. Isn't that interesting? Now I will assume that How Long Have Humans Been On Earth? - WorldAtlas is not a creationist website.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes, the changes (human intervention) happened faster than mutations could adapt to them. And so they started dying off. They lived in an ecological niche and didn't manage to evolve out of it.

Well, the evolving process inherent in the possibilities of the dodo bird stopped there.

 

[YoursTrue]

I also think what may confuse some is what what we call rapid evolution where two groups are isolated from each other and can no longer breed and look no different but are considered different species.

I'd really like to hear the answer (the reasoning) about this from someone who believes in the process of evolutionary changes as to rapid or slow process. What species were involved, do they say, in this?

 

[We Never Know]

Well, the evolving process inherent in the possibilities of the dodo bird stopped there.

When something like the dodo that had no natural peedators, only laid one egg and had no competition survival isn't a problem.

Enter humans that over hunted them, destroyed their habitat and brought in others species that ate or destroyed their single egg, extinction will follow fast.