Well, then, radish and cabbage are NOT the same species, not even the same genus.
So would you now say that this statement of yours needs revising?
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
No, species.
After all, this theory does involve speciation, yes?
Aren't raddishes and cabbages of the same family [EG;mustard]?
If so, then this is definately not macro-evolution, but rather, micro..
man can clone humans as well, it's a matter of what happens naturally in nature that can be considered true evolution.
In asexual reproduction, nature makes clones as well.
There is not much humans can do with living things that nature hasn't done first.
you can hybrid a rose with a tree and get a rose tree it doesn't mean it's evolution.
That is what I am saying. The discussion on hybrids is a tangent and a red herring because you don't even need to have any hybrids to have evolution.
Yes, there are instances when some new species were formed through hybridization, but that doesn't make it the only, or even the most common, feature in the history of evolution.
you still cannot provide an evolution that is not man made that can cross the genus barrier. Every single hybrid presented was either man made or was sterile outright. So I think it's safe to say evolution has failed on a macro level.
No, your strawman of evolution has failed, since evolution doesn't posit crossing barriers.
I am glad you see that evolution doesn't cross barriers.
Neat shift. I see the change from "evolution does not posit crossing barriers" to "evolution doesn't cross barriers".
Now since evolution does not posit crossing barriers, when does evolution fail?
a) when, contrary to expectations, it does cross barriers?
b) when, as expected, it does not cross barriers?
how did the first asexual organism become heterosexual btw? besides asexual reproduction is much simpler than the others. It is not the same as heterosexual cloning because two parent products are needed.
when it doesn't cross the barrier of macro evolution at a greater than species level (genus).
Sex was invented before gender. If you define "sex" as the transfer of genetic information to another organism, even bacteria do that, although they still reproduce asexually.
Many plants and fungi reproduce both sexually and asexually, and in some all the spores for reproduction are identical (isosporus)--so you can have sexual reproduction without having male and female.
Another way is for organisms to be both male and female. That is, every individual is a hermaphrodite. This is found in both plants and animals.
It is not a far cry from either of these to specialized genders.
And you are wrong about cloning. You cannot have a clone when you have two parents. Even if the normal mode of reproduction involves two parents, a clone has only one parent.
well then cloning is worse for evolution than previously expected.
How can DNA evolve?
Since when have chemists created DNA?That is not a question about evolution, but about chemistry. So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.
Self replicating is not self-alterating, nor is it the creation of NEW DNA.Once the DNA molecule exists, the fact that it is self-replicating makes it easy to explain how it can evolve.
Making it from scratch is EXTRAORDINARILY inefficient, and I'm actually not sure how to do it. However, that is biochemistry, which I (thankfully) don't specialize in. Ugh.Since when have chemists created DNA?
Actually, yes it is. The enzymes and other cellular machinery are not perfect at copying, so the self replication is self altering because of how imperfect it is. And yes, self replication does create NEW DNA, because where there was one complete strand, there are now two complete strands. The total amount of DNA has increased by one strand. That strand is NEW.Self replicating is not self-alterating, nor is it the creation of NEW DNA.
What makes you think that? It was never expected to be good for evolution by scientists. So maybe its only worse than you previously expected because your expectations were unrealistic.
With the help of natural selection.
But given the images and video clip you provided, I don't think your question is about how DNA evolves, but about how the DNA molecule originated.
That is not a question about evolution, but about chemistry. So, go ask a chemist what is necessary to make a DNA molecule.
Once the DNA molecule exists, the fact that it is self-replicating makes it easy to explain how it can evolve.
It can't be done.Making it from scratch is EXTRAORDINARILY inefficient, and I'm actually not sure how to do it. However, that is biochemistry, which I (thankfully) don't specialize in. Ugh.
Usually DNA is manufactured by altering the DNA over plasmids or other single celled, fast reproducing organisms, letting them multiply, testing that the desired sequence has been propagated, destroying the cells, and harvesting the DNA from the leftovers. It's much easier than making new DNA from scratch. However, the nucleotides in and of themselves aren't too complicated.
Very well.Actually, yes it is. The enzymes and other cellular machinery are not perfect at copying, so the self replication is self altering because of how imperfect it is.
It's not new, it's a copy of that which is new.And yes, self replication does create NEW DNA, because where there was one complete strand, there are now two complete strands. The total amount of DNA has increased by one strand. That strand is NEW.
Metherion
It can't be done.
Very well.
It's not new, it's a copy of that which is new.
how can natural selection compose up DNA?
No, he is using 'copy' as 'new'.This is where it becomes necessary to define just what you mean by "new".
Metherion is right in one sense of "new". The second strand of DNA did not exist before, so it is new.
But you are saying that a copy of what already exists is not new.
So you are using "new" with a different meaning.
It's still not new, for it is still a copy, albiet a less that adequate copy, but a copy nonetheless.Now, what about a copy that is not a perfect copy of the original. Now you have not only a second strand of DNA which did not exist before, but parts of it are not a copy of the original.
So, now, the second strand of DNA contains new DNA which was not in the first strand.
In speaking of speciation, appearing for the first time, EG; a new species, not the modification of an existing one.Or do you want to redefine "new" yet again.
Who made any claim that it does? Before you go off on a tangent opposing a position, you should check on whether anyone holds that position. Attacking a position no one is supporting is attacking a straw man.
No, he is using 'copy' as 'new'.
New is that which was not before. Whilst copy is a dulplicate of that which already is.
It's still not new, for it is still a copy, albiet a less that adequate copy, but a copy nonetheless.
In speaking of speciation, appearing for the first time, EG; a new species, not the modification of an existing one.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?