The 'Macro-Micro' thing....again..

[Strathos]

Adam & Eve?

I said back to cyanobacteria.

And for the record, I don't want photographs.

I want physical evidence that is on display somewhere.

For example, if I said: "357,185 BC"

You would have to be able to take me to a specific address and show me a fossil that existed in 357,185 BC.

I'm just throwing your challenge back at you. Using your own logic, I shouldn't believe anything about your ancestry unless you can show me labeled photos of all of your direct ancestors all the way back to Adam and Eve.

 

[USincognito]

I don't know anything about evolution.

You asked a question and I gave an answer.

If it's not good enough ... too bad.

Isn't there an adjective that describes this sort of behavior? It begins with a t and ends with ing.

 

[pgp_protector]

Isn't there an adjective that describes this sort of behavior? It begins with a t and ends with ing.

I think, but some of those words can get you in trouble now.

 

[biggles53]

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

No it isn't....and what's more, you know it isn't...

So-called 'macro' evolution does NOT posit that a horse could reproduce with a clam.....congratulations, you have now sunk to the level of the moronic thinking of Mr Crocoduck, Kirk Cameron....how gleeful you must be to find yourself in such august company...!

'Macro' evolution is simply a continuation of the SAME processes involved in 'micro' evolution, to the extent that species development will diverge to greater degrees....but, each minor change that pushes that divergence is EXACTLY THE SAME as any other....mutation by mutation, each being filtered by the inexorable statistics of natural selection...

So.....when and where do we reach a point where those mutations stop happening...? What causes that 'stop'...?

 

[USincognito]

I think, but some of those words can get you in trouble now.

Actually, just the opposite.

Trolling

Trolling is intentionally disrupting a thread by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages with the clear intention of provoking other members into an emotional response. Please do not troll. Pointing out that another member is trolling a thread is not a violation. Calling another member a "troll" would be a violation of the flaming rule (calling them a derogatory name).

Underline, mine for emphasis.

 

[Kylie]

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

But horses and clams aren't in the same population, aren't they?

 

[Justatruthseeker]

But horses and clams aren't in the same population, aren't they?

Let's see, who was it that claimed they were all in the vertebrate kind???

Besides, I've pointed it out over and over, mutations can NOT cause the existence of new genes, but it can cause the existence of all varieties from perfect genes through loss of function.

Direct mutation experiments with actual life show it can not create all the new varieties through added functions.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

 

[Subduction Zone]

Let's see, who was it that claimed they were all in the vertebrate kind???

Besides, I've pointed it out over and over, mutations can NOT cause the existence of new genes, but it can cause the existence of all varieties from perfect genes through loss of function.

Direct mutation experiments with actual life show it can not create all the new varieties through added functions.

http://www.weloennig.de/Loennig-Long-Version-of-Law-of-Recurrent-Variation.pdf

LOL, not us.

Yes, you have continually shown that you have no understanding of evolution. You have tried to use an article that you did not understand so many times it that now you do not even list it.

Justa, why do you keep repeating claims of yours that have been shown to be wrong hundreds of times? You aren't fooling any of the long time members here nor are you fooling any of the newbies.

You know mutations can add new information. One more time, can you drink milk?

 

[AV1611VET]

So-called 'macro' evolution does NOT posit that a horse could reproduce with a clam.....

You asked for a physical barrier.

And I am submitting -- as a physical barrier -- the fact that a horse cannot reproduce with a clam.

And it looks like you agree with me.

Either start paying attention to what I'm saying, or this conversation is over.

 

[AV1611VET]

But horses and clams aren't in the same population, aren't they?

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I'm going to agree with it.

They are not in the same population, and they never will be.

Even trying to create a new genus in vitro by mixing a horse with a clam is not going to produce anything.

Something keeps that from happening.

I submit that "something" as a physical barrier to macroevolution.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I'm not sure what you meant by that, but I'm going to agree with it.

They are not in the same population, and they never will be.

Even trying to create a new genus in vitro by mixing a horse with a clam is not going to produce anything.

Something keeps that from happening.

I submit that "something" as a physical barrier to macroevolution.

It depends upon how you define a population. For example they are both eukaryotes. They both reproduce sexually. Go back far enough and you will find a common ancestor.

 

[AV1611VET]

It depends upon how you define a population. For example they are both eukaryotes. They both reproduce sexually. Go back far enough and you will find a common ancestor.

So what?

What's that have to do with the price of tea in Boson harbor?

 

[Subduction Zone]

So what?

What's that have to do with the price of tea in Boson harbor?

If you don't understand then you should not be debating. You need to drop your line of attack and try a new one.

 

[createdtoworship]

Please explain the BIOLOGICAL MECHANISM which acts as a barrier between so-called 'micro' and 'macro' evolution.....

the mechanism is reproduction. Natural selection only works if you can reproduce it in offspring, if there is no ability to reproduce, say frogs and lizards. Then the selection fails. That is the exact mechanism you ask for. This happens to be the "genus barrier" that I have been mentioning all this time. No transitions have evolved that link any two existing or extinct genus with another genus. This doesn't happen because of reproduction limitations. You may counter argue that there are no reproduction limitations, well that is fine. Then submit a transition that crosses the genus barrier.

 

[createdtoworship]

And thus my point.

I submit that whatever it is that keeps a horse from being able to fertilize clam eggs (or whatever), is the barrier that the biggles is looking for.

yes the genus barrier I speak of is mainly too, just a reproductive limitation of natural selection. A frog evolves spots, and it cannot pass on the trait to say, a lizard. IT just doesn't work that way. That has been my experience studying genus level taxonomy. It mainly is a cross reproduction limitation. You are correct.

 

[Dizredux]

.

And I am submitting -- as a physical barrier -- the fact that a horse cannot reproduce with a clam.

A horse cannot breed with a rock either.

Dizredux

 

[createdtoworship]

Please explain how sterility acts as a barrier BETWEEN micro and macro....ie, it would permit variety up to the point of 'micro' evolution, but not beyond it.....?

has nothing to do with sterility, it has to do with reproductive compatibility. An organism has a group of say species that it can cross breed with (sometimes interspecies breeding can take place but not all the time). But it cannot breed with other genus, now psychosara has mentioned that a whole group changes and somehow their reproductive groups change as a whole and now frogs are able to breed with say lizards because the whole group grew lungs and fertilization techniques. This is fictional to say the least. Never has a whole population changed its breeding group in a generation or even a million generations. You can't change your reproductive group. Humans will never be able to mate with monkeys, hence this is why you can't at the same time take an ape heart and transplant it with a human heart. They are different genus.

 

[AV1611VET]

A horse cannot breed with a rock either.

Dizredux

I believe he asked for a biological barrier.

Had he not done so, I would have immediately answered: "time."

 

[AV1611VET]

yes the genus barrier I speak of is mainly too, just a reproductive limitation of natural selection. A frog evolves spots, and it cannot pass on the trait to say, a lizard. IT just doesn't work that way. That has been my experience studying genus level taxonomy. It mainly is a cross reproduction limitation. You are correct.

Thank you.

"Genus barrier" ... I like that term!

 

[Smidlee]

yes the genus barrier I speak of is mainly too, just a reproductive limitation of natural selection. A frog evolves spots, and it cannot pass on the trait to say, a lizard. IT just doesn't work that way. That has been my experience studying genus level taxonomy. It mainly is a cross reproduction limitation. You are correct.

I think it's more of a information barrier. All it required for a frog to change into a prince is the code (there's more information than just DNA) built to do so. I'm amazed a caterpillar can become a butterfly yet that's all because the code is already built-in ; both the DNA and cell structure.