Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
All life reproduces according to, after, or consistent with its kind.An Africanized bee is still a bee.
However, an ant and a bee came from the same animal millions of years ago.
What you are doing is like looking at a photo of a river and saying that water does not flow because the picture does not show water actually moving.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
All life reproduces according to, after, or consistent with its kind.
So what do you call a Tangerine? A Mule? Corn?
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.
"Macroevolution" hasn't been considered an appropriate scientific term for decades. People should really stop using it.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Give me an example of a new species being created within the animal or human population.
1. By admitting variation you've alread half-accepted natural selection.
2. New species of humans? lol. The way we f*ck each other there will not be a new species of human for a long time, if ever.
Species is a fairly loose definition that relies on natural breeding practices. Its a concept often too big to test sceintifically.
Also, may I point out that there is no "animal or human population" there are populations of animals and of humans.
Nothing really. "Micro" and "macro" evolution are the same thing on different scales. If I look at a piece of cork under a microscope, its still a piece of cork. There is no different word necessary. the "macro" term also implied that there was a different process going on when that really wasn't the case. Hence with the serieous advent of molecular biology, it was slowly dropped.
Speciation is a good term to use, but its not exactly the same concept. Most of "macroevolution" is the same as "micro," except for that final "separation" of species. Otherwise you have the same old natural selection and its mechanisms, the stuff lumped under "microevolution."
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. 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.
Hahahaha, right. You've shown to have utter ignorance when it comes to Evolution theory.
Mutation is what leads (or can lead) to Evolutionary changes, it stands to reason that all life on this planet is connected if you go back far enough, look at your "puppy and banana" post. Though I didn't click on it, I'm fairly certain it stated that a dog and a banana share much of the same DNA, as does everything else. It's the little differences that separate a person from a chimp, a mouse, a rose etc. etc. etc.
Many small changes compiled over millions/billions of years can cause species to separate and become distinct, this leads to new species and different species. A crab didn't one day mutate a pair of wings and fly like a bird and then within a few generations that crab's lineage became birds, not even close, but it's possible if you go back far enough, crabs and birds do share the same single-celled ancestor billions upon billions of years ago; they at some point took very different evolutionary paths as did all their subspecies.
Originally posted by Ordo
So what do you call a Tangerine? A Mule? Corn?"Macroevolution" hasn't been considered an appropriate scientific term for decades. People should really stop using it.
1. By admitting variation you've alread half-accepted natural selection.
2. New species of humans? lol. The way we f*ck each other there will not be a new species of human for a long time, if ever.
Species is a fairly loose definition that relies on natural breeding practices. Its a concept often too big to test sceintifically.
Also, may I point out that there is no "animal or human population" there are populations of animals and of humans.
Natural selection is the name given to a law that I believe God set in motion and sustains by the Word of His power. I believe that God created the mechanism for variation within species. I do not believe that it is a random, chance occurrence.
There will not be a new species because humans do not have the capacity to create life only reproduce it.
Okay.
Semantics.
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Natural selection is the name given to a law that I believe God set in motion and sustains by the Word of His power. I believe that God created the mechanism for variation within species. I do not believe that it is a random, chance occurrence.There will not be a new species because humans do not have the capacity to create life only reproduce it.
Okay.
Semantics.
So, if you were shown one, you would dismiss it out of hand because it cannot exist?
Originally posted by JesusIsAlive
Natural selection is the name given to a law that I believe God set in motion and sustains by the Word of His power. I believe that God created the mechanism for variation within species. I do not believe that it is a random, chance occurrence.There will not be a new species because humans do not have the capacity to create life only reproduce it.
Okay.
Semantics.
Well, that's a break away from "God made everything as is", now isn't it. Losing your faith in the written word of the Bible, eh?
It certainly is possible, as they already was other species of humans and they died out not all that long ago, when looking at life on this planet as a whole, they were called Neanderthals, humans, but an entirely different species.
Though I'd imagine It'd take something like the colonization of a different world though space travel, where the alien environment provided the chance for certain mutations to flourish and this of course would require more time than can logically be tracked.
Originally posted by Robtard
Hahahaha, right. You've shown to have utter ignorance when it comes to Evolution theory.Mutation is what leads (or can lead) to Evolutionary changes, it stands to reason that all life on this planet is connected if you go back far enough, look at your "puppy and banana" post. Though I didn't click on it, I'm fairly certain it stated that a dog and a banana share much of the same DNA, as does everything else. It's the little differences that separate a person from a chimp, a mouse, a rose etc. etc. etc.
Many small changes compiled over millions/billions of years can cause species to separate and become distinct, this leads to new species and different species. A crab didn't one day mutate a pair of wings and fly like a bird and then within a few generations that crab's lineage became birds, not even close, but it's possible if you go back far enough, crabs and birds do share the same single-celled ancestor billions upon billions of years ago; they at some point took very different evolutionary paths as did all their subspecies.
Mutation does not lead to macroevolutionary change only perhaps variation within a kind.
Similarity is not evidence of common ancestry. Comet cleanser and Windex are both composed of chemicals (similarity) but do not share the same ancestor (i.e. manufacturer).
Originally posted by Ordoha-ha-ha, funny. yet again, internet people prove their stupidity.
He wants his retarded theories checked on the internets? lol. Just because he's in Pharmacy...lol...would you go ask your Walgreen's Pharmacist about Milankovitch Cycles? The only math he needs to know is addition.
To become a licensed pharmacist, a student must graduate form an accredited school of pharmacy, pass a state board examination, and serve an internship under a licensed pharmacist in a community or hospital pharmacy. Most states, including Mississippi, require continuing education for license renewal.
Here is a checklist for pre pharmacy
Biology-141 General Botany 4
Biology-142 General Zoology 4
Chem-102 Introductory Chemistry 5
Chem-104 Introductory Chemistry 5
Chem-251 Organic Chemistry 3
Chem-252 Organic Chemistry 3
Chem-261 Organic Chemistry Laboratory 2
*Math-253 Calculus I 5
Math-254 Calculus II 5 (recommended only)
Physcs-140 Principles of Physics I** (or) 5
Physcs-141 General Physics 5
I'm sorry, what were you saying?