Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution to become macroevolution?
TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 248 of 301 (347709)
09-08-2006 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 247 by Equinox
09-08-2006 4:24 PM


Re: Noticing a mutation.
Equinox, this isn't a direct reply to your post.
But...from what we know about genetics, they don't usually affect ideals or religions, such as Christianity or Satanism.
And on the other hand, things such as age are affected by a person's genetic makeup.
So far, throughout all the theories that I've looked at, none have successfully (and by successfully, I mean 100%) detailed the origin of the traits we have. OK, I'll explain that further. Basically, I want to know WHY we have the makeups we have, and why we're divided into races and such. Does it have to do with regional bounds? Does climate modify DNA itself so that your future generations develop the same attributes as your ancestors?
And to actually be on topic, what actually denotes macroevolution? What makes macroevolution occur, and how long do these proposed changes take to happen? Thousands of years? Millions? The only changes currently observed have been changes of adaptation.
I used to be both a creationist and an evolutionist, but both are bollocks as a whole. I just need answers.
|the kid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 247 by Equinox, posted 09-08-2006 4:24 PM Equinox has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2006 10:27 AM TheNewGuy03 has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 253 of 301 (347813)
09-09-2006 4:42 PM
Reply to: Message 251 by crashfrog
09-09-2006 10:27 AM


Re: Noticing a mutation.
Don't get me wrong.
What I mean is that creationism has its good points, and evolution has its good points.
And I DO know that we get our traits from our ancestors, and how. I want to know why a specified species, when mated with another of the same specified species, doesn't result in a random new species.
I know what you're trying to say, but it's not answering my question. I already observe it happening. Random mutation happens; natural selection happens. I'm not debating the validity of those.
I just want to know how it started. Like, why certain groups of people have a certain skin color, and others don't. I already know that it's a result of the amount of pigment in each respective "race," as we like to call it. But why?
And, as a side note, don't always try to answer every question that I put out, as some of them are rhetorical.
|the kid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 251 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2006 10:27 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2006 11:17 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied
 Message 261 by RickJB, posted 09-10-2006 9:59 AM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 260 of 301 (347901)
09-10-2006 4:45 AM
Reply to: Message 256 by crashfrog
09-09-2006 11:17 PM


Re: Noticing a mutation.
Oh, just to let you know, I AM Black
But...I actually accept the vast majority of the evolutionary theory. But the only thing that I don't agree with is the time periods that associated with it, as well as what is referred to as "speciation." Something to support this:
"Biologists studying evolution do a variety of things: population geneticists study the process as it is occurring; systematists seek to determine relationships between species and paleontologists seek to uncover details of the unfolding of life in the past. Discerning these details is often difficult, but hypotheses can be made and tested as new evidence comes to light. This section should be viewed as the best hypothesis scientists have as to the history of the planet. The material here ranges from some issues that are fairly certain to some topics that are nothing more than informed speculation. For some points there are opposing hypotheses -- I have tried to compile a consensus picture. In general, the more remote the time, the more likely the story is incomplete or in error."
Intro to Evolutionary Biology
Sorry for posting such a large segment, but I did cite my source.
Don't get me twisted, man. I probably agree with you on the majority of things, but I want your take on this.
Also, what about Tragopogon and T. mirus and T. miscellus? What do you think about that? And how do you propose that it supports the common ancestry theory supported by many evolutionary biologists?
Also, do you mind explaining "common ancestry" and "speciation" to me? I would like to know what you think.
|the kid
Edited by TheNewGuy03, : grammar.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 256 by crashfrog, posted 09-09-2006 11:17 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 263 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2006 3:02 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied
 Message 264 by NosyNed, posted 09-10-2006 3:16 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied
 Message 267 by Faith, posted 09-10-2006 4:12 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 301 (347978)
09-10-2006 5:46 PM
Reply to: Message 264 by NosyNed
09-10-2006 3:16 PM


Re: Common Ancestry
Um, explain to me YOUR definition of speciation. I know what I know about it already, but I want to know how you feel about it.
Additionally, by my logic, I believe that life came from a few -- by my definition, each species had its origin at the same time, and each species, well...speciated, from that point until now. Natural selection and random mutation produced the variation of species that we have today.
And what evidence do you suppose that each group we see present today is derived from only one group (e.g., mammalia, protozoa, etc.)? If all the fossils show the same dates genetically, then wouldn't it be possible that these various species were separate to begin with? Given that these fossils probably weren't in a controlled environment, that is.
And I continue to wonder where the initial ideas for dates arose from. I understand how the dating process works, but it also assumes that the earth came into existence 4.5 billion years ago; all dating methods go off of this premise. If the standard was younger (or older), would you guys have to readjust the time frames according? Just a thought.
Maybe some of you guys have a good way to answer this question.
|the kid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 264 by NosyNed, posted 09-10-2006 3:16 PM NosyNed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2006 5:59 PM TheNewGuy03 has replied

TheNewGuy03
Inactive Member


Message 274 of 301 (347981)
09-10-2006 6:00 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by PaulK
09-10-2006 5:59 PM


Re: Common Ancestry
How?
|the kid

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2006 5:59 PM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 275 by PaulK, posted 09-10-2006 6:04 PM TheNewGuy03 has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024