Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How is that evidence of macroevolution?
Now you're moving the goalpost, nice tactic.
Not all mutations are physical, ie a change in skin/scale/feather color which happens to be beneficial in a certain environment.
The CCR-5 defect would be a micro evolutionary change/mutation, which in a certain environment proved to be beneficial and flourished within a human population.
Or do you think God gave the world plague and HIV and just happens to love Europeans more?
Originally posted by Robtard
Now you're moving the goalpost, nice tactic.Not all mutations are physical, ie a change in skin/scale/feather color which happens to be beneficial in a certain environment.
The CCR-5 defect would be a micro evolutionary change/mutation which in a certain environment, proved to be beneficial and flourished.
Or do you think God gave the world plague and HIV and just happens to love Europeans more?
How does natural selection work?
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
since i am immune to smallbox from my ascenstors exposure and modern vaccination as a child plus the added extra protection from military grade vaccination from biological warfare... does that mean i may have an immunity to aids?just curious, i know it sounds asinine but really like an answer. 🙂
wish there was a test to find out.i also like the aids immunity thing wish i would have come up with it, but i didnt have the full information on it.
The only thing known to fend off HIV is the CCR-5 gene defect (that I know of), HIV uses the CCR-5 as a doorway into your system, without it/defective one, HIV simply has no means to enter and reproduce.
There are test, as labs are trying to devise an immunity for HIV based on the defect. I have no idea where'd you go though, I also have no idea if the CCR-5 defect also protects against HIV-2, though I'd think so since it's in the same family and you'd also have to go whoring around in Western Africa to find out.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
How does natural selection work?
In going to give you a logical example, albiet in laymen terms, as the various explanations people have posted and re-posted have either failed to sink into your skull or you just ignored them.
Imagine a small population of reptiles; their main predator is some form of hawk. Now imagine that a mother lizard gives birth to a batch of baby lizards and due to random mutation (which happens; it can be seen today), some are born of a slightly lighter shade and this makes them sligthly harder for the hawk to see/hunt in their environment.
Given enough time (as evolution takes a lot of), the population would eventually all turn that lighter shade, as the darker ones would be easier targets and have a less chance of surviving to reproduce. This would be natural selection/survival of the fitness, as the ligther ones are better suited to survive in their specific environment than the darker.
It should also be noted that not all mutation is beneficial, if the ligther shade made those first lizards easier for the hawk to hunt, that mutation would most likely die out before it was allowed to spread, as you can't reproduce and pass on your genetic information if you're dead.
Originally posted by Robtard
In going to give you a logical example, albiet in laymen terms, as the various explanations people have posted and re-posted have either failed to sink into your skull or you just ignored them.Imagine a small population of reptiles; their main predator is some form of hawk. Now imagine that a mother lizard gives birth to a batch of baby lizards and due to random mutation (which happens; it can be seen today), some are born of a slightly lighter shade and this makes them sligthly harder for the hawk to see/hunt in their environment.
Given enough time (as evolution takes a lot of), the population would eventually all turn that lighter shade, as the darker ones would be easier targets and have a less chance of surviving to reproduce. This would be natural selection/survival of the fitness, as the ligther ones are better suited to survive in their specific environment than the darker.
It should also be noted that not all mutation is beneficial, if the ligther shade made those first lizards easier for the hawk to hunt, that mutation would most likely die out before it was allowed to spread, as you can't reproduce and pass on your genetic information if you're dead.
I don’t ask questions because I do not know. I ask to gauge your knowledge and understanding.
Random mutation is not microevolution and it certainly will not lead to that population transforming into another species. Just a defective individual or individuals within a population. That is simply an example of variation within a species (phenotypically speaking). That is where evolutionist err. They characterize phenotypic difference within a population as evidence of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.
The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
Although the occurrence of macroevolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, a tiny minority of scientists dispute its factuality or degree of occurrence.[3][4] This minority view is often associated with the anti-evolution position of certain religious groups which attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are not considered scientific by scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[5] See intelligent design or creationism for more information on these views.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
I don’t ask questions because I do not know. I ask to gauge your knowledge and understanding.Random mutation is not microevolution and it certainly will not lead to that population transforming into another species. That is simply an example of variation within a species (phenotypically speaking). That is where evolutionist err. They characterize phenotypic difference within a population as evidence of macroevolution.
In time, these changes add up and the species will change enough to be considered a different species. What if there were some of the lizards that were isolated from the ones that turned a litter color? These lizards would, over time, take their own path and change differently then the first group. Add on top of this change a million more small changes, and you now have to different species.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
Macroevolution is a scale of analysis of evolution in separated gene pools.[1] Macroevolutionary studies focus on change that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution,[2] which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population.The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, comparative genomics and genomic phylostratigraphy contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from theropod dinosaurs.
Although the occurrence of macroevolution is overwhelmingly accepted by the scientific community, a tiny minority of scientists dispute its factuality or degree of occurrence.[3][4] This minority view is often associated with the anti-evolution position of certain religious groups which attempt to differentiate between microevolution and macroevolution, asserting various hypotheses which are not considered scientific by scientific organizations such as the American Association for the Advancement of Science.[5] See intelligent design or creationism for more information on these views.
A puppy with green eyes is not another species of that breed it is just a variation thereof, but a dog nonetheless.
There will always be variation within species but never new species. There is a law at work that restricts any new formation of species.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
A puppy with green eyes is not another species of that breed it is just a variation thereof, but a dog nonetheless.There will always be variation within species but never new species. There is a law at work that restricts any new formation of species.
But an animal that lived millions of years ago evolved into a dog on one hand, and a bear on the other. You can see the similarities, but the differences have added up to being more then the similarities.
Originally posted by Wild Shadow
and yet we humans have created new species by artificial means of genetic manipulation.. some capable or reproduction and some not..
so it is possible that natural means can create new species.
🙂
Variation within a species is possible but no new species have been created.
Give me an example of a new species being created within the animal or human population.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Variation within a species is possible but no new species have been created.Give me an example of a new species being created within the animal or human population.