|
|
Due to spam and off-topic content, these forums are being phased out and replaced with new great books forums. Please join us!
Posted by Muzzy on January 17, 1999 at 21:35:59:
In Reply to: Re: macroevolution posted by Homo sapiens on January 17, 1999 at 21:02:22:
: : : : : : You said:
: : : : : : "As usual, you still fail to comprehend the
: : : : : : difference between microevolution which is
: : : : : : caused by natural selection, and macroevolution
: : : : : : (speciation) which has no known mechanism."
: : : : : : Like many other creationists, you acknowledge that microevolution occurs but not macroevolution. Yet all of us supporting evolution say that macroevolution is just a long series of microevolutionary events.
: : : : : : Why can't a 10 million- or 20 million-year sequence of microevolution involving millions of generations produce macroevolutionary change?
: : : : : Because you have not explained the mechanism for
: : : : : this change to occur. MIcroevolution works on
: : : : : all ready present genes and changes in the
: : : : : frequencies of such and cannot be extrapolated
: : : : : to macroevolution. If you think it can, let me
: : : : : ask you this question: If we started out with
: : : : : a population of bacteria all of which have 1
: : : : : chromosome as there entire genetic makeup, how
: : : : : can simple variations in these genes and selection,
: : : : : after any amount of time, cause organisms with
: : : : : say, 8, 20, or 46 chromosomes to appear? These
: : : : : genes were never present, how then does natural
: : : : : selection work on what is not there?
: : : : The mechanism is natural selection. You have already acknowledged that natural selection is responsible for microevolution. The question is why can't a 10 million- or 20 million-year sequence of microevolution involving millions of generations produce macroevolutionary change?
: : : This is nice, but you still havn't answered my
: : : question. I asked you how natural selection
: : : supposes to take a single bacterium, with one
: : : chromosome, to creatures with 8, 22, or 46
: : : chromosomes. Natural selection works on all
: : : ready present genes, we all know this. Your
: : : reply to this was the answer is natural selection.
: : : How does natural selection do this? Your answer:
: : : natural selection.
: : It seems to me that I asked you a question and you are the one who hasn't answered. Answer mine first.
: I answered the question how come microevolution
: does not amount to macroevolution,
Could you point it out to me? For some reason it doesn't seem to appear on my computer.
you did not answer
: my question of how chromosomes expand.
I haven't the faintest idea. I don't know what you are talking about.
If you
: think I didn't answer your question, state it again.
My question was why can't 10 million or 20 million microevol. changes make a macroevol. change? You said: "MIcroevolution works on
all ready present genes and changes in the
frequencies of such and cannot be extrapolated
to macroevolution." That doesn't answer the question. It supposes that macroevolution is something different than microevolution when, in fact, it is just the same thing on a longer time scale. That's nothing strange where nature is concerned because everything about nature involves fractal scales. So once again, answer the question I asked.
: If you look above, I see an explanation under
: your question, but none under mine. I think this
: is just your attempt to avoid uncomfortable questioning.
I answered your question about mutations somewhere else on the thread. Seek and thou shall find.
If you don't answer the question about macroevolution that I have put to you, it must be umed that you are just ducking it and that it is you who are trying to avoid an uncomfortable subject.