When first learning about evolution, the entire process made sense to me, and I “sketched out” an example of the evolutionary process in my mind that I found to be helpful in understanding it. However, I haven’t had a biology class in two years now and, even in my AP class, we did little with evolution.
Please note that I am not saying that the following example is what happened or even could happen. I am merely using it as an example of the (simplified) evolutionary process. (I am making this clear so that I do not receive any “rofldoodle stupid” comments.)
Let us say there is a savannah. It is vast and has a variety of herbivorous creatures upon which any carnivores may dine. Now, in this savannah, there is a carnivore that is the top of the food chain. It is a very generic carnivore; its features include teeth, four legs, a tail, and fur. It cannot really be classified because of these indistinct features.
Now, in this savannah flows a river, effectively dividing the savannah in two. It is not impossible to cross, but it is certainly inconvenient. At some point in time, some of the carnivores are forced to cross this river due to a shortage of prey due to natural phenomenon. Some, however, do not cross, splitting the groups. Upon the other side, one group finds food and makes that place its permanent residence.
Over time, genetic variation and the rare beneficial mutation cause a change in characteristics. The carnivores on the famished side of the river have developed shorter, broader muzzles, they have sharp claws, and their bodies have adapted to chasing after lone herbivores—they are quick but only in short bursts. As the food source was scarce, they began hunting solitarily rather than as a group.
The other group, the one on the abundant side of the river, has developed longer, narrower muzzles, stubbier claws—as they weren’t necessary—and their bodies have adapted to long runs. Since there were plenty of herbivores, there was a greater chance that the carnivores would be spotted in hunting alone and thus had to resort to tiring out their prey in groups.
In short, one group is feline and the other is canine.
At some point in time, for whatever reason—perhaps a drought, another shortage of food, etc.—the groups mix. They both cross the river, but, as so many years have passed and their physiologies changed so much, they no longer resemble one another. In fact, they are completely incapable of sexual reproduction between the two groups. Thus, there are two groups, canines and felines, sharing the same habitat.
Now, is this or is this not correct?