Originally posted by Blue nocturne🤨 are you paying attention to what I'm saying? Do you understand english?
You, constantly avoid my questions, did I say you did not know that "micro evoltion" and genetic variation were the same, did I say "macro evolution" means mutations? If you read more then I guess you would get things better but it seems that you don't.
okay I'll try to name all the faults in your post:
Originally posted by Blue nocturneno I don't I've answered all the one's I've seen 😉
You, constantly avoid my questions,
did I say you did not know that "micro evoltion" and genetic variation were the same,THEY AREN'T THE SAME YOU ****ING MORON. NOT ONLY THAT BUT I DIDN'T SAY "I do know that "'micro-evolution' and 'genetic variation' are the same." I said, "'Micro-evolution' is not 'genetic variation'." and if you're still too dumb to know that, here's the post.
Originally posted by lord xyz
when did I say that? 'Micro' doesn't mean 'genetic variation' and 'Macro' doesn't mean 'mutations' and 'environmental variation' you moron.
did I say "macro evolution" means mutations?Why don't you tell me.
Originally posted by Blue nocturnethis is refering to micro and macro evolution, meaning you think "a combination of traits that is ALREADY THERE" means micro-evolution and "NEW TRAITS FORM FROM MUTATIONS?" means macro-evolution. WRONG!
XYZ, answer me this please, How can a combination of traits that is ALREADY THERE be similar to a theory that believes NEW TRAITS FORM FROM MUTATIONS?
I've already shown you these. Why do you ignore me when I'm right?
If you read more then I guess you would get things better but it seems that you don't.right. 😐
Oh, by the way
Originally posted by Captain FalconWhy haven't you commented on this yet? Or rather, lots of other things I've posted and still wait a reply?
evolution is a rate of change. If change happens, evolution happens. Simple. 😉-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Here is my brilliant ANALOGY!!!
Every cell on a human is different. E.g. Skin cells, Brain cells, Muscle cells, all different. Now, scientists say they all came from one cell in a womb, but Creationism says that can't happen. God made our cells and systems all at once and they didn't start off as one.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
any questions?
Originally posted by Blue nocturneI think you have me confused with yourself. Moron.
Can you answer my question for once instead of avoiding it as usual?
Originally posted by lord xyzno I don't I've answered all or most of them 😉 THEY AREN'T THE SAME YOU ****ING MORON. NOT ONLY THAT BUT I DIDN'T SAY "I do know that "'micro-evolution' and 'genetic variation' are the same." I said, "'Micro-evolution' is not 'genetic variation'." and if you're still too dumb to know that,
Your the biggest idiot on earth 🙁
You said micro evolution creates new breeds, which is what genetic variation is, the variation of traits amongst the same species that results in different breeds yet they are not the same?
Man do you know what your talking about?
Originally posted by Blue nocturneWTF? Where's a scientist when I need one. 🙁 so apparently if genetic variation is a part of micro, micro is genetic variation. Yep. You sure do know your stuff. Click the ****ing links why don't you.
Your the biggest idiot on earth 🙁
You said micro evolution creates new breeds, which is what genetic variation is, the variation of traits amongst the same species that results in different breeds yet they are not the same?Man do you know what your talking about?
is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, and genetic drift.
Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.
Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.
Because microevolution can be observed directly, creationists agree that it occurs, though they tend to make a distinction between microevolution, macroevolution, and speciation.
refers to evolution that occurs above the level of species, which is microevolution over long time spans. In contrast, microevolution refers to smaller evolutionary changes (described as changes in allele frequencies) within populations. In the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is the "normal" mode of evolution. The process of speciation (isolated populations) is the link between macroevolution and microevolution, and it can fall within the purview of either. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution.Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:
* It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by classical population genetics. One of these two views is becoming less and less tenable as the role for genome-wide changes and developmental processes in evolution become clearer.
* A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.
just incase you don't have the ability to click links. Then again, you never had clicked ANYONE's links for that matter. Or not that I know of.
Originally posted by lord xyz
WTF? Where's a scientist when I need one. 🙁 so apparently if genetic variation is a [b]part of micro, micro is genetic variation. Yep. You sure do know your stuff. Click the ****ing links why don't you. [/B]
Micro is genetic variation, since they both lead to different breeds you even said it youself
Originally posted by lord xyzMicro produces a new breed.
That's what genetic variation does, in an extreme case a combination of genetic variation ,genetic drift and natural selection results in speciation. look up a ring species it explains different breeds not being able to mate.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneby using your logic.
Micro is genetic variation, since they both lead to different breeds you even said it youselfThat's what genetic variation does, in an extreme case a combination of genetic variation ,genetic drift and natural selection results in speciation.
A baseball bat can smash a CD player.
A hammer can also smash a CD player.
They're the same thing!
Originally posted by lord xyz
by using your logic.A baseball bat can smash a CD player.
A hammer can also smash a CD player.They're the same thing!
Man, you just get worst
I mean a combination of pre existing traits producing different breeds (Genetic variation)
Is soooo different fromm a combination of different pre exsiting traits that produce new breeds ( Micro evolution)
Stay in school XYZ.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneWTF, when have I ever said that's what Micro evolution?
Man, you just get worstI mean a combination of pre existing traits producing different breeds (Genetic variation)
Is soooo different fromm a combination of different pre exsiting traits that produce new breeds ( Micro evolution)
Stay in school XYZ.
please pay attention to my posts instead of selectively answering one at a time.
Originally posted by lord xyzcheck this post. DF
just incase you don't have the ability to click links. Then again, you never had clicked ANYONE's links for that matter. Or not that I know of.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneokay, maybe saying 'breeds' wasn't the best name for it. It's a new form of the species like certain bacteria which are resistant to anti-biotics. That is an example of 'micro-evolution' changing to fit the environment. What macro? Changing to fit the environment. youpi
When you said they produce breeds remember, and again they are the same.
Originally posted by lord xyz
when you're willing to reply ALL that I have said, maybe we can fully discuss this.
I've been replying to so many people excuse me if I forget.
Originally posted by lord xyz
okay, maybe saying 'breeds' wasn't the best name for it. It's a new form of the species like certain bacteria which are resistant to anti-biotics. That is an example of 'micro-evolution' changing to fit the environment. What macro? Changing to fit the environment. youpi
Though it seems that way It really isn't, antibiotics don't kill 100% of the bacteria, they can kill 99.9% of the bacteria but the ones that don't die are immune iin the first place since, they simply reproduce and the new population is immune the mutation alway's exsited if it didn't then all the bacteria would have died.
Originally posted by Blue nocturne
Your the biggest idiot on earth 🙁
You said micro evolution creates new breeds, which is what genetic variation is, the variation of traits amongst the same species that results in different breeds yet they are not the same?Man do you know what your talking about?
You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about, but neither do you.
Simply for the fact that you refuse to accept that a long chain of micro-evolutionary changes can alter one species enough that it will become a different animal. HINT: That's not the same as genetic variation, as that only applies withing the same species. Once the species officially 'breaks off' from its ancestor, it's not genetic variation anymore. You also refuse to do any DNA and genetics research at all, or else you'd have a different view.
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakI may not have much knoledge on this, but FYI, I'm 14. I wonder how old he is?
You're right, he doesn't know what he's talking about, but neither do you.Simply for the fact that you refuse to accept that a long chain of micro-evolutionary changes can alter one species enough that it will become a different animal. HINT: That's not the same as genetic variation, as that only applies withing the same species. Once the species officially 'breaks off' from its ancestor, it's not genetic variation anymore. You also refuse to do any DNA and genetics research at all, or else you'd have a different view.
Originally posted by lord xyz
I may not have much knoledge on this, but FYI, I'm 14. I wonder how old he is?
Then why do you act like you do XYZ?
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakSimply for the fact that you refuse to accept that a long chain of micro-evolutionary changes can alter one species enough that it will become a different animal. HINT:
Again there is no proof that enough micro changes can result in speciation , I don't believe it because there is no proof. But it is a fact that natural selection along with genetic drift , and genetic variation can result in speciation. The new species has less traits or some other factor that creates a species barrier. I explained it best when I responded to jaden's "herring claim"
And arachnoid freak your no expert, you said all species have the same traits then why does genetic homeostasis disprove this?
Originally posted by Blue nocturne"So many people"? Now why don't you think, why "So many people" tell you you're an idiot and wrong.
I've been replying to so many people excuse me if I forget.
Originally posted by Blue nocturneAs for this bit: WTF? Your evidence on this is...
Though it seems that way It really isn't, antibiotics don't kill 100% of the bacteria, they can kill 99.9% of the bacteria but the ones that don't die are immune iin the first place since, they simply reproduce and the new population is immune the mutation alway's exsited if it didn't then all the bacteria would have died.