wrong. you are combining macromutation and micromutation to suit your point.
though the theory you apparently believe in does exist (saltationism), it is not the defining theory behind evolution. you would do well to not insist that it is. also, most who agree with the evolution theory disagree entirely that such random tremendously altering mutations are the basis for evolution.
Macroevolution and Microevolution are both Evolution. duhr.
http://science.howstuffworks.com/evolution5.htm
some natural selection stuff... http://library.thinkquest.org/C004367/be2.shtml
The modern understanding of evolution is based on the theory of natural selection, which was first set out in a joint 1858 paper by Charles Darwin and Alfred Russel Wallace and popularized in Darwin's 1859 book The Origin of Species. Natural selection is the idea that individual organisms which possess genetic variations giving them advantageous heritable traits are more likely to survive and reproduce and, in doing so, to increase the frequency of such traits in subsequent generations.In the 1930s, scientists combined Darwinian natural selection with the theory of Mendelian heredity to create the modern evolutionary synthesis, also known as Neo-Darwinism. The modern synthesis describes evolution as a change in the frequency of alleles within a population from one generation to the next. The mechanisms that produce these changes are the basic mechanisms of population genetics: natural selection and genetic drift acting on genetic variation created by mutations , genetic recombination and gene flow.[1] This theory has become the central organizing principle of modern biology, relating directly to topics such as the origin of antibiotic resistance in bacteria, eusociality in insects, and the staggering biodiversity of the living world.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution
Shut. The. ****. Up.
how strange that you post a link from think quest, since the very article only proves you wrong:
"There is another important distinction to be made between different types of mutations. The type of mutation most people think of when presented with the word "mutant" is called a macromutation, or a mutation that involves a very large change. A frog born with eyes in its throat or with extra legs would be an example of a macromutant. Macromutations are equivalent to taking a blind leap over a precipice and hoping to land on a ledge. They are virtually never beneficial (no well-documented case exists) and are not the forces of change in natural selection. The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."
My point was that mutations and natural selection are the basis of evolution, and your excerpt from a website I posted (funny how you claim one website I posted means nothing but you try to use another against me) don't prove me wrong. Nothing will prove me wrong.
To say a major defect like an extra arm will not cause any evolutionary change in the species is a completely valid point. Try to tell me that random mutations don't make up evolution and I will make a fool out of you.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
My point was that mutations and natural selection are the basis of evolution, and your excerpt from a website I posted (funny how you claim one website I posted means nothing but you try to use another against me) don't prove me wrong. Nothing will prove me wrong.
i never said it meant nothing. i just find it funny how the misinformed immediately click their wikipedia bookmark so that they can quote passages and seem like experts on the topic. what i DID say was that nothing in the article supported your theory that all mutation equals evolution, and it clearly doesnt.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
To say a major defect like an extra arm will not cause any evolutionary change in the species is a completely valid point. Try to tell me that random mutations don't make up evolution and I will make a fool out of you.
ALL random mutations do not make up evolution. SOME random mutations are thought to make up evolution. quote a valid source which claims otherwise and i will "shut the **** up". and dont be so damn predictable and post an essay which states that evolution is made up of random mutations, because its not the same absolute statement which you just made.
if you even bothered reading the article YOU posted, or at least read the part which i quoted for you, you might know that. but i guess your quest for knowledge must be sacrificed and abandoned just so you can "make a fool out of" people...or at least claim to.
When was my theory that ALL mutations equal evolution? I'd like you to quote that bit.
I specifically remember saying that the 'bad' mutations are weeded out by natural selection. Therefore those mutations don't add up to evolution. DUH.
I don't have to post an essay. You're making up points that I was never arguing.
Here you go, let me display my point again, since you don't seem to understand it:
Evolution is made up of a combination of natural selection and random mutations.
Refute that and I'll give you a cookie.
Maybe you don't understand the language. A '**** up' would be a mutation. A 'good **** up' would be a good mutation. A 'bad **** up' would be a bad mutation. I thought you would have figured that out. Therefore, what I said still stands.
Evolution is made up of a combination of natural selection and random mutations. Still not something you can refute.
a GOOD **** up? 😂
you said that evolution is based on "random **** ups" as in genetic errors. a **** up is an error. can we agree on that? with the assumption that we do:
what you are trying to sell (3 armed baby= evolution): "The (erroneous) belief that macromutations (3 armed baby, 6 legged horse, 2 headed goat etc..) drive evolutionary change is called saltationism, and is generally discredited today. "
and now here is the point you need to get into that thick head of yours:
"The second type of mutation is called a micromutation, or a mutation that involves a very small change. An incredibly vast majority of all mutations fall into this category. These mutations can be (and generally are) harmful in effect, but are not drastic changes, but rather fine gradations. Micromutations are what evolutionists discuss when studying natural selection."
you're backpeddling in useless, considering you already stated that this article is an example of evolution. unless you can convince the mods to erase your posts here, you are clearly in the wrong for all to see. sorry 😬
Someone doesn't realize that ANY mutation, good or bad, is a **** up. A copying error during DNA transfer, a change in the genetic material, ANYTHING outside of the 'normal' is a **** up. Whether it's good or bad is determined by how beneficial it ends up being to the species.
I'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution. It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function.
What I am telling you is that Evolution consists of random mutation and natural selection. What do you not understand? Should I highlight it for you? Talk to you in ikkle little baby words so you understand? Try a different language entirely?
those words are not taken out of context and you know it.
unless "taken out of context" means "proved your statements to be incorrect and inconsistant".
you could have stood corrected but you chose the childish cop-out method.
fine then.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Forget the 3-armed baby.
*reads quote*
*looks at title of thread*
*points and laughs*
Since when is having an extra arm NOT a random mutation?(Hint: Never)
Since when is a random mutation NOT a part of evolution?(Hint: Never)
You're kind of playing with semantics just to have save your ass. That's ok though.
"It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function." <<This is the context you took the quote out of. Hence "out-of-context"
And 'Evolution consists of a combination of random mutations and natural selection" still hasn't been refuted. Im waiting.
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Macroevolution and Microevolution are both Evolution. duhr.
"The (erroneous) belief that macromutations drive evolutionary change is called
saltationism, and is generally discredited today. "
how long do you wish to continue embarrassing yourself. you could have just stood corrected and i would have dropped it immediately without even a hint of gloating. but nooooooooooooooooo. you just cant be reasonable can you?
wait a minute. i get it. i typed "macromutation and micromutation" and for some reason you just glazed over it and read "macroevolution and microevolution" just so you could say "duhr".
now, go back, READ SLOWLY, get the meaning of what i said and what the articles you posted say, and understand....please
edit:
Originally posted by Arachnoidfreak
Aha, see, a slight miscommunication.
no, i communicated quite clearly. you just need to work on avoiding misunderstandings by way of properly reading.
No wiki for you, maybe a different ecyclopedia entry? http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/enc1/macromutation
Most biologists believe that adaptation occurs through the accumulation of small mutations. However, an alternative that has been suggested for this process is macromutation, essentially when a large-scale mutation produces a characteristic. This theory has generally been disregarded as the major explanation for adaptation, since a mutation on this scale is regarded as more likely to be detrimental then beneficial. However, beneficial macromutations have been known to occur: for example, the addition of body segments among arthropods may be regarded as a macromutation.
See also: evolution
Where's that pesky quote tag...oh yea!
Originally posted by ArachnoidfreakI'm not trying to sell that a 3-armed baby is evolution. It could have been if the arms worked and are beneficial, but the damn thing is in pain all the time and one of them doesn't even function.
There's that pesky context I was talking about.
And there's STILL no refute for "Evolution consists of a combination of natural selection and random mutations"