{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/12/2015 12:08:00 AM
13
What is the mechanism that prevents microevolution from stacking up to the point that the animal isn't the same species?
English
-
Reverse evolution.
-
Can you elaborate as to what that is?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/12/2015 2:30:04 AMIt's as the name implies, and it was exhibited in the OP.
-
And this prevents macroevolution how? If a dog is born in the wild with a mutation that causes his blood to clot more slowly, is it less likely that he'll survive long enough to have a bunch of little puppies? And if the clotting problem is hereditary, will the puppies be better off or will they die quickly? What about a dog who was born with a slightly better digestive tract letting him absorb more nutrients from food; he can survive longer with less food. If the trait is hereditary, which dog's offspring will be more likely to survive? Is it the one that can bleed out more easily or the one that can survive with less food? Which one will be able to pass on his genes to more offspring?
-
Edited by SSG ACM: 7/13/2015 1:44:21 AMWe must remember that anything with chemoreceptors can tell the difference between negative and positive physical effects since it is actually evident that every animal and human naturally thinks "this bad, that good" thinking. In truth, there is something wrong with your conundrum. We, or more specifically the atheistic community or Darwin lobby, are dependent on the non-substantive or circumstantial reasoning with these "if" scenarios when in reality, nature goes against the logic and evidence that actually occurs in nature (e.g., no new species, organic manifestation, etc). Your scenarios present these cases as "what if" when actually, we should be thinking with the mentality of "since so-and-so occurs, we will be under the reasonable conclusion that so-and-so will happen." Sure, your cases may actually occur, but it doesn't cause that particular dog species to develop into a new species. That's the biggest issue with evolution. The Bible presents an origin and evidence for that origin with some support to the thinking that some of the science of evolution is justified; however, the parts that aren't are not in scripture, are impossible to observe, and can be reasoned to have been thought up as being illogical.
-
Edited by FakeQuasiMixture: 7/12/2015 8:15:21 AMThe "what if" is for proving the concept. Proving concepts is great and all but they shouldn't be taken as concrete until applied in the real world. Sadly, until we can speed up time, observing species to species evolution will be nearly impossible. What we're left with is a hypothetical that is true based on what we can and have observed. We observe the little changes. We observe that these changes are hereditary and get passed on. We observe that the ones with benificial changes survive more easily. We can't find a barrier that prevents a species from changing when multiple changes are applied gradually. Add in the fossils that we find that show a gradual (albeit debatable) change and we come to the logical conclusion that species to species evolution is [b]possible[/b]. Make sense?
-
Bullshit he made up.
-
Did some research. It's a pseudoscientific term used to describe negative mutations in a creature. SSG first assumed that the process of evolution only progresses forwards. Then he completely forgot about the concept of natural selection.
-
The big problem with the whole thing: "pseudoscientific".
-
-
Natural selection doesn't negate the thinking. Whenever it is demonstrated in nature or even in textbooks, it doesn't create a new species, only variants.
-
If two organisms are fertile and cannot breed with each other, then they are separate species. This has been observed
-
Edited by FakeQuasiMixture: 7/12/2015 2:53:05 AM[quote]Natural selection doesn't negate the thinking.[/quote] If your thinking is that "devolution" prevents macroevolution via the negative mutations balancing out the positive, then yes, it does. [spoiler]You haven't explained how it prevents macroevolution from what I know. I'll read through the OP for clarification.[/spoiler] [quote]Whenever it is demonstrated in nature or even in textbooks, it doesn't create a new species, only variants.[/quote] We're talking about evolution as a whole, correct? Species to species evolution on a large scale hasn't been observed. We assume that if it's true in small scale, given time, it's true in large scale. You assume that some mechanism prevents this. Which is a more reasonable assumption? [b]Edit:[/b] you explained the process of cyclicality as a means of undermining macroevolution. Can you link to me the study about the mosquitos?
