|
Author
|
Topic: Directly Observed Mutation
|
RustyShackelford 
Inactive Member
|
|
Message 12 of 50 (154350)
10-30-2004 2:27 AM
|
Reply to: Message 11 by markoo
10-29-2004 12:17 PM
|
|
Bacteria surviving environmental changes is evidence of natural selection, because there's clearly something hartier about the bacteria that survive than the bacteria that don't, but it'snot evidence for evolution.......anymore than faster monkies being able to get away from lions and breed fast monkey babies is. It's evidence of survival of the fittet, but not evidence that an animal can mutate to become fitter than they already are. Most "evidence" for beneficial mutations fall into tis category.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 11 by markoo, posted 10-29-2004 12:17 PM | | markoo has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 13 by NosyNed, posted 10-30-2004 2:55 AM | | RustyShackelford has not replied | | | Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 6:16 AM | | RustyShackelford has replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 15 of 50 (154739)
11-01-2004 1:10 AM
|
Reply to: Message 14 by crashfrog
10-30-2004 6:16 AM
|
|
But that's microevolution.......one monkey being able to run faster from a lion than others isn't a mutation which changes the organism....... how is that evidence for macroevolution?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 14 by crashfrog, posted 10-30-2004 6:16 AM | | crashfrog has replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 18 of 50 (154754)
11-01-2004 1:51 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
11-01-2004 1:15 AM
|
|
Re: micro - macro
Ned, I suppose micro-evolution would be under the level of species.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 1:15 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 10:29 AM | | RustyShackelford has replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 19 of 50 (154756)
11-01-2004 1:53 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by NosyNed
11-01-2004 1:15 AM
|
|
Re: micro - macro
What mechanism is there that stops a lot of smaller changes cummulating in a totality which is a larger change? I've heard that a lot of changes that life goes through to adapt to environment aren't really new mutations but activations of recessive genes........
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 1:15 AM | | NosyNed has not replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
Re: micro - macro
Can you give us an example so we can go from there? I've heard variation of color in plants and animals in adaptation to environment isn't caused by new mutation.
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 26 of 50 (154902)
11-01-2004 2:26 PM
|
Reply to: Message 24 by NosyNed
11-01-2004 10:29 AM
|
|
Re: micro - macro
Ned, different species can't produce fertile offspring with one another, correct? Therefore, at that time, the genetic destinies of the original animal and the newer evolutionary form have become mutually exclusive.......I'd have to say that's definitely macroevolution. But is there any evidence for it occuring?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 24 by NosyNed, posted 11-01-2004 10:29 AM | | NosyNed has replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
Re: micro - macro
Contrary to this (and despite Crash and Lam playing dumb), micro-evolution is no evidence for the unlimited variablity of living things.
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
|
|
Message 31 of 50 (154909)
11-01-2004 2:31 PM
|
Reply to: Message 27 by Loudmouth
11-01-2004 2:28 PM
|
|
Re: micro - macro
Loudmouth, but if the people haven't mutated, then they haven't evolved, right?
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 27 by Loudmouth, posted 11-01-2004 2:28 PM | | Loudmouth has replied |
|
RustyShackelford
Inactive Member
|
Re: micro - macro
Can you give me proof that this animal's existance was caused by evolution?
|
™ Version 4.2