Ok,
post 62: the upward progression in complexity from bacteria to man.
post 68: Macro-evolution would present that Bacterian became Man at some point, (i.e. a vertical change) which is much more then a small change(i.e. horizontal change) which would be macro-evolution. I present that change is limited to Micro-evolution according to all obervations and say that nothing supports macro-evolution not even the fossil record because the fossil record does not show the same intermediate changes as we see today in the skin color of man.
post 81: The difference between vertical and horizontal is a good enough destinction to say that it is theoretical to say macroevolution occured. The idea between the two differences is that natural selection explains that the dominate species will win and as such this permits a change but only a change in species present and allows mutation to a degree, and which wont allow mutation to progress in a positive way. And as such you cannot say that microevolution eventually leads into macroevolution.
post 83: I never said that macro-evolution didn't occur, I simply said that the evidence does not suggest such a occurance.
post 87: I can see that I confused you on my standpoint. I cant say without a doubt that macro did occur, but the way I feel about macroevolution is that it didn't occur, but that is based on evidence. Could macro have occured, maybe and maybe not. I am more inclined to think that it didn't. I hope that helps.
post 94: hard to understand what is being said other then the transition from fox to dog or dog to fox would be considered macroevolution. better understood if we read post 104 and also read
post 95: this artical has a link which explains microevolution according to sonic, i.e. post 96.
post 161: AIG would probably be writing about micro-evolution, a genus is nothing more then a classifcation of 2 or more species which could mate like the Wolf and Dog, or Donky and Horse,(i.e. a genera) Which would be considered micro-evolution, because there is no new formation of "new abilites" such as wings, which would allow the new 4 legged family to fly and even if a new species developed from interspecies relations, it would not be considered macro-evolution unless a new ability were formed.
post 168: Microevolution: minor genetic alterations (horizontal change)
Macro-evolution(i.e. organic evolution): Organic evolution, as theorized, is a naturally occurring, beneficial change that produces increasing and inheritable complexity. Increased complexity would be shown if the offspring of one form of life had a different and improved set of vital organs. This is sometimes called the molecules-to-man theoryor macroevolution. (vertical change)
P.S. I bet those definitions are not perfect as nothing is now days
post 170: No new organs equal no macro-evolution, that is if I understand the differences correctly. Read post 168, that should be 2 good definitions and I hope it helps the understanding were the two split off (i.e. micro vs macro)
post 177: read post
post 179: Ok, when you read the definition of macroevolution, it is pointing out that macroevolution would occur if a new organ(i.e. new ability) was formed.
post 185: can see why you are confused. The definition only applies to evolution. example, If you were to study my pair of eyes you might come to the conclusion that I can only see in black and white(pretend this is the same for every person on the earth). Then you would need to study my descendents for many generations to see if they all had black and white vision and also to look for one which could see in color. Then you would need to compare the organs of old to the organs of new, you would see 2 pairs of organs which dont match. 1 pair which were old and one pair which is new, the new would appear different then the old, That is the idea when the word different is used. Also note, if you made a discovery which matched this example you would have macro-evolution.
post 186: If I changed the meaning I would not still be agreeing with the old information. I added to the definition at a worse case scenario, but the truth is I never represented my ideas properly.
Yes We are working with post 168 as definitions.
post 189: Ok, the example was a bad one. I am sorry bare with me please. The understanding of what organ which would require a change is a vital organ. The eyes are not vital organs.
vital organ:
n : a bodily organ that is essential for life
------------------------------------------------------------
I have been watching this thread, and this is my conclusion of macro-evolution: Sonics definition of Macro evolution cant be observed at all ever, but you could say if you apply his definition to history, that this idea(i.e. macroevolution) is reported in the TOE. For Example: I am not sure but I think bacterian do not have a pair of eyes. We would ask ourselves first, at which point where eyes evolved(i.e. theoreticaly speaking). We would say dureing the cambrian explosion(I think). What life form had the first set of eyes would be the next question, and what fossil record from precambrian life to cambrian life represents (i.e. metaphoricaly speaking) this new ability (if all questions were answered in a since,we would, could observe metaphoricaly speaking macro-evolution). After we think about that we can see that Sonics definition of macro-evolution states that if a new pair of vital organs evolved it would be considered macro-evolution. In this example I have shown how eyes would be vital to life probably due to natural selection but in any case this also shows where micro-evolution would play its role, lets say this cambrian life went from being able to see in black and white to being able to see in color, this change would represent a micro-evolutionry change(small genetic changes). The problem with Macro-evolution is we wont be able to observe it because all organs are attached in our day. The only thing we may observe is Micro-evolution. Macro-evolution will never become factual because of this problem.
Quiz
™ Version 4.2
