Originally posted by Wild Shadow
no, i win because kirk cameron proved god is real and showed that their are no such things as evolution or micro evolution or croca ducks.
Micro-evolution would be a tadpole's metamorphosis into a frog.
Or, a caterpillar into a butterfly.
So, how's that not valid?
Kirk Cameron...😖
Originally posted by The Scribe
Micro-evolution would be a tadpole's metamorphosis into a frog.
Or, a caterpillar into a butterfly.
So, how's that not valid?Kirk Cameron...😖
WHAT?!?!?!?!??!? the ????? HELL?!?!?!?!
if that was sarcasm then fine, but NO, that is NOT what micro evolution is. micro evolution is mutation of ALLEALES, in individual genes which gives rise to new alleales in the same specied {i.e. eye colour, skin tone etc, look up alleales, ull understand what i mean}
macro evolution is CHROMOSOMAL mutation, which is adding to or subtracting from the number of chromosomes in a specied{humans have 23} and chaning them changes the species.
they both have the same mode of action and mechanics, onlu difference is probability.
imagine a crossword puzzle with 4 open spaces.
lets say the original word was "dick". alleale mutation wud be, "duck". chromosomal mutation wud actually change the number of open spaces and fill them up with new words, like "dickhead".
Originally posted by The Scribe
It's in the dictionary and scientists agree to it.
Muggle is in the dictionary too...
And no, scientist do NOT agree with it, hence its not part of the modern synthesis and hasn't been a (relevant) part of the scientific discussion since the advent of genetics and the modern synthesis.
Originally posted by leonheartmm
WHAT?!?!?!?!??!? the ????? HELL?!?!?!?!if that was sarcasm then fine, but NO, that is NOT what micro evolution is. micro evolution is mutation of ALLEALES, in individual genes which gives rise to new alleales in the same specied {i.e. eye colour, skin tone etc, look up alleales, ull understand what i mean}
macro evolution is CHROMOSOMAL mutation, which is adding to or subtracting from the number of chromosomes in a specied{humans have 23} and chaning them changes the species.
they both have the same mode of action and mechanics, onlu difference is probability.
imagine a crossword puzzle with 4 open spaces.
lets say the original word was "dick". alleale mutation wud be, "duck". chromosomal mutation wud actually change the number of open spaces and fill them up with new words, like "dickhead".
"WHAT?!?!?!?!??!? the ????? HELL?!?!?!?!"
That is both factually incorrect.
No. Its not.
1. Micro/macro evolution are NOT scientific concepts. They are NOT part of the Theory of Natural Selection. They are NOT part of the modern scientific understanding of evolution.
2. What you described are types of mutations. That is all. Mutation is NOT evolution. Mutation occurs on the organismal level. Evolution occurs on the species level and requires natural selection (reproduction)...neither of which are involved in mutation. So, correlating two types of mutation (of which there are many more) to two random outdated scientific concepts is just plain wrong. "DICK" to "DUCK" is a substitution mutation. "DICK" to "DICKHEAD" is an insertion mutation. Neither qualifies as evolution...at all...let alone the non-scientific concepts of "macro" and "microevolution."
So, not only did you use scientifically outdated concepts (do you believe in alchemy too?) you couldn't even properly define your inappropriate terms.
as far as I know the concept is still useful in archeology as well, but in both of those they are conceptual frameworks for understanding the transition of one anthropologically defined species category to another, not biological theories of different "types" of evolution.
Both anthropologists and archeologists, to the best of my knowledge, would agree that micro and macro evolution have the same mechanism, re: are biologically the same.
Originally posted by Ordo
Evolution occurs on the species level
Ah, you're one of them Gould boys then, hmmm?
