Posted: 5/8/2008 10:31:18 AM EDT
| What mechanism do you think macro evolution uses? |
Like that other guy said... it's a gradual change, just like microevolution... it's just a lot more gradual.  Natural selection at work. I keep reminding people that there's a sure-fire way to prove that women don't only want huge dicks... There are still guys with small dicks. 
|
| Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie Monkey Pie |
It's this kinda hippie dude that starred with Bruce Willis in that last "Die Hard" movie, and that dorkie guy that plays the obstetrician in "Baby Mama", and they stand there and talk about what Mac can do, and what PC can;t do,m and stuff... |
|
Not really related to the direct discussion....but here is a cool article I read lately... Regulating Evolution: How gene switches make life |
Do wars start gradually, suddenly, or a combination? Does poverty start gradually, suddenly, or a combination? The question is equally nonsensical. |
|
Depends entirely on environmental factors, and if a mutation happens to occur that takes advantage of them. For example... Long ago in the paleolithic era, pretty much all of Europe was devoid of humans due to the fact its winters were too harsh for humans to get enough Vitamin D to survive. Then, one day, some guy gets zapped by cosmic rays while he's still a sperm... Next thing you know that dude has white skin that is capable of producing useful quantities of Vitamin D from sunlight, rather than diet... Next thing you know he and his kids are setting up villages further and further north. There are lots of other examples, even among humans... Almost every difference you see exists because it was an advantage in one environment or another. These days... Our environment has changed due to technology... So those differences are no longer really needed... Hence why we have this whole melting pot thing going on. Animals are different however... They still pretty much all exist in either two forms... Niche creatures, or universal creatures... Niche creatures evolved in a very PE way (like early Caucasian humans), taking advantage of a specific environment in a rapid manner... Universal creatures that exist in almost all environments tend to have evolved much more gradually. In other words, get both. |
|
It's funny reading these answers cause the honest answer is no one knows and more importantly, you can't even define what you mean by the word "mechanism". There is no evidence of macro evolution ever taking place. No evolutionist has even shown us the previous organism that any current living organism today has macro-evolved from. That's why this poll is ridiculous, no one knows because no one has seen observed it and secondly you cannot produce any examples of most recent "previous macro ancestor" that a current organism evolved from. 
|
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils |
They're made out of meat!
In before "Those all look like fishes/horses/whales/cats/etc. to me" or "Those are all just species, not transitional species." |
|
Evolution has two types of tools, those that increase genetic diversity and those that decrease it. The introduction of new alleles typically happens slowly. Although, it is possible for genetic material to be introduced without being expressed for many generations. It is also possible for isolated populations to interbreed, quickly introducing new alleles. Selection can either happen in cataclysmic events or slower progression. |
Define "macro-evolution." |
Exactly right. Do some research for a change. Out of all those specimens listed, not ONE is claimed to be an ancestor of any living organism today. Your own pro-evolution www.talkorigins.org/ even address some of these specimens and acknowledges that they are independent of anything alive today. Do some research on Archaeopteryx or Ichthyornis etc. etc. The arrogance of evolutionists is remarkable. You think just because a creature looks like it's a transitional creature that it must be one. YOu've been stung over and over by making this error and everytime you're shown to be incorrect, you assume it's because either evolution didn't happen for that particular creature or it's isolated from the rest of the creatures for some reason. However, when you actually research these animals you discover that none are claimed to be the ancestor of modern animals. Because they cannot be linked to modern animals through evolution they are discarded as "separate" or "parallel" branches of evolution that ended in a "dead end". Sheesh. You can't even bring yourselves to admit the evidence is staring you in the face that your conclusion of evolution is wrong because you always approach your research with the assumption that evolution is true instead of waiting until you complete your research first. Your evolution is your religion, it is not science. No other subject is science is held as tightly as a belief system as evolution. You guys are always good for a laugh though, I must say
|
Unless you count every species on Earth today, how they are distributed, and the entire fossil record - sure, no evidence of evolution. Can you offer a better theory to explain the species as they are observed today? |
|
Piggy backing on the back of crystals…duh!......... Kidding! I just couldn’t resist. I’m just not feeling it today. I guess being Friday i'm just out of the mood.  I guess you’ll have to try again on a Monday to get my best effort. That or I guess I could paste a massive article from the AIG website for you to make fun of…..just because I care for your intellectual stimulus of course. 
|
We aren't talking origin of life in this thread, but feel free to start one.
That tends to be AR's job. Where is he, anyway? Still hung up in the abortion thread, maybe. |
I've been studying the subject for more than 40 years, and your ad hominem argument does not impress me.
That's neither true nor relevant to the question of whether macroevolution occurs.
Oh come on, A_E, you know very well there is a lot more evidence for evolution than gross morphology. You people keep tossing out the same canned false arguments. Talk about arrogance.
That's just nonsense. |
The "change," is the result of a mutation; so you can say it happens suddenly. However, each "beneficial," mutation is generally small, and only expresses its benefit and becomes dominate over time. It is the sum of thousands of small beneficial mutations (using selection of the most beneficial) that results in the overall change. So both. |
|
If this is all "proven" science, why the need to ask the question? Unless of course it is not "proven" science. 500 generations of bacteria with some radiation should take about 3 weeks. 5,000 generations should take 7-8 months. Hasn't this testing been done before? If it hasn't, why not? If it has, what has it produced? |
It has. No radiation required. Mutation rates for many different organisms have been documented. In the world, though, there are many more factors at play than in vitro. |
This statement pretty much sums up the problem, you have no idea what you are talking about. It's not that you aren't intelligent enough or incapable of understanding it, but that no amount of proof will ever convince you because there is a well established firewall in your brain. |
The only people asking the question are non scientists i.e. non experts There is no debate in the scientific community about whether or not evolution is real. |
What has it produced? Did we get multicellular organisms? Did Macro Evolution occur? |
Define "macro evolution." Speciation has been observed. |