Originally posted by JesusIsAliveYour idea of it and I never said it did, as been stated many times that is bad science. I don't know why you can't see this after you been told over and over, you accept that small changes happen in species and can be passed onto its offspring but if you add them all up it doesn't change what they were to start with. 😖
Ask a real scientist, macroevolution does not exist.
Originally posted by PITT_HAPPENS
Your idea of it and I never said it did, as been stated many times that is bad science. I don't know why you can't see this after you been told over and over, you accept that small changes happen in species and can be passed onto its offspring but if you add them all up it doesn't change what they were to start with. 😖
Scientists themselves deny that macroevolution has occurred, is it strange that I deny it as well?
JIA could you explain this please:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6896753.stm
Butterfly shows evolution at work
Scientists say they have seen one of the fastest evolutionary changes ever observed in a species of butterfly. The tropical blue moon butterfly has developed a way of fighting back against parasitic bacteria. Six years ago, males accounted for just 1% of the blue moon population on two islands in the South Pacific. But by last year, the butterflies had evolved a gene to keep the bacteria in check and male numbers were up to about 40% of the population. Scientists believe the comeback is due to "suppressor" genes that control the Wolbachia bacteria that is passed down from the mother and kills the male embryos before they hatch. "To my knowledge, this is the fastest evolutionary change that has ever been observed," said Sylvain Charlat, of University College London, UK, whose study appears in the journal Science. Rapid natural selection Gregory Hurst, a University College researcher who worked with Mr Charlat, added: "We usually think of natural selection as acting slowly, over hundreds of thousands of years. "But the example in this study happened in the blink of the eye, in terms of evolutionary time, and is a remarkable thing to get to observe." The team first documented the massive imbalance in the sex ratio of the blue moon butterfly (Hypolimnas bolina) on the Samoan islands of Savaii and Upolu in 2001. In 2006, they started a new survey after an increase in reports of male sightings at Upolo. They found that the numbers of male butterflies had either reached or were approaching those of females. The researchers are not sure whether the gene that suppressed the parasite emerged from a mutation in the local population or whether it was introduced by migratory Southeast Asian butterflies in which the mutation already existed. But they said that the repopulation of male butterflies illustrates rapid natural selection, a process in which traits that help a species survive become more prominent in a population. "We're witnessing an evolutionary arms race between the parasite and the host. This strengthens the view that parasites can be major drivers in evolution," Mr Charlat said.
Originally posted by JesusIsAliveScientist and researchers disagree with each other all the time, which is the nature of science but doesn’t prove a thing. Even creationists disagree with each other does that mean that it is invalid too?
Scientists themselves deny that macroevolution has occurred, is it strange that I deny it as well?