crashfrog, in mutation, the genetic material is slightly changed. It is slightly different, but still basically the same.
And in evolution, the population is slightly changed. It's slightly different, but still basically the same.
When you take a number, and add one to it, you've only slightly changed it. It's only a slight change to go from 2 to 3. But keep adding one, and you can go from 1 to 100. That's a pretty big change.
And of course we would need new genes to add any new body part.
There's not too many new body parts in evolution. Look at the vertebrate fossil record and you'll see that variation on a pre-existing body part is the rule, not new body parts. Arms are specialized legs. Wings are arms with feathers. Fins are feet with webs.
Adding things like body parts, or getting rid of body parts requires a great deal of genetic information.
Says you. Experiments with Hox genes, however, prove you wrong.
Even if it did, it would take a great deal of time, and the limb would slowly get smaller, and smaller, then finally dissapear.
No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.
Then that would create your "chimera", which you so vehemotly are against.
I'm not against them. I'm just telling you that chimeras account for only a small fraction of transitional species.
THERE"S NOT TO MANY NEW BODY PARTS IN EVOLUTION? You are saying, by believing in evolution, that all life came from a single celled bacterium!! Where are the "specialized" limbs there, huh?
quote: No. In invertebrates, legs are turned on and off with single genes.
we arent invertabrates. Neither are dinosaurs. Or birds. Sure invertabrates legs turn on and off with a single gene, but you say dinosaurs evolved into birds, and their limbs are far more intrecate than an insects.
quote:Macroevolution has not be "observed" at all. Someone just takes the evidence, then they want to believe so badly that it is the proof that they were looking for, that they convince themselves that it IS.
Since I used to be a biology major, I read a lot of articles on this issue. Humans have only been looking for definite transition between species the last 100 years or so, comparing to about 4 billion years. So far, we've observed the rise of 1 new species in this life time. I'm still surprised that the info hasn't hit the headline yet.
In 1997, they found a completely new species of roddent in Argintina. This new species is called the tetraploidy rat. It has twice as much chromosomal number as the normal rat, and it is bigger, stronger, and faster than the normal rat in that region.
The rat came about when some errors occurred probably through mitosis or meiosis in a normal rat's sex organ.
This rat, obviously, has a lot of advantages over the native rats in that region. Since they've been around for only a short time, they haven't done much to gain popularity. But some evidence have suggest that they are going outcompete with the local rodents.
Again, one example that we can find is pretty impressive for only 100 years of observation, wouldn't you say?
just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species, thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it) is a highly evolved human. evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right? mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?
thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it)
Not like that, dude. Trust me.
just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species
No. But because it can't mate with any other population of rats, does mean it's a new species. That's the definition of species, after all - a reproductive community.
evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right?
Wrong. Here's an idea - if you want to learn about evolution, why don't you read a textbook on the subject? Everything you've heard about it from creationists is wrong.
Evolution is a process by which allele frequencies in populations change as a result of natural selection. This process results in organisms that are adapted to their environments and species that lose the ability to mate with populations they become isolated from.
quote:just because its bigger and stronger and faster dosnt mean its a new species,
No, but an inability to interbreed with other species of rat, and genetic differences from other rat species makes it a different species.
quote:thats like saying arnold schawrtsanigger (however u spell it) is a highly evolved human.
Um, Arnold became big and strong because he took steroids and worked out a lot. Genes played some role in his ability to put on muscle and also his basic frame, but the rest had nothing to do with genetics.
quote:evolution is one this becomes another, a dinosaur to a bird, not a rat to a rat, and not just different but better right?
Evolution is simply the change in the allele frequency in a popularion over time.
"Better" relates only to how the organism is adapted to it's environment. What is "better" today could be maladaptive tomorrow if the environment changes.
A rat to a slightly different rat in responses to a changing environment is evolution. A rat to a slightly different rat, to a slightlyy different rat from that, and so on and on and on until the current rat is a lot different and cannot interbreed with the parent species of rat is what was described above.
Can you tell me what mechanism exists which would be a barrier to the described process continuing forever, changing the populations into something that is totally un rat-like, given environmental pressures plus time?
quote:mind telling me how going from a dinosaur to a bird is a good thing?
Hmm, maybe the ability to hover or glide would be good for both hunting and escaping predators?