Total Posts:62|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Microevolution -> Macroevolution

Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely. I'm going to argue that it is not the case. Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution. Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis; macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:

If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species, heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Just putting my thoughts out there.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely. I'm going to argue that it is not the case. Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution. Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis;

Cladogenesis is not a specific type of mutation, it's just another word for speciation. I think you mean saltation, in which case you're still wrong.

macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.

heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Logically possible? Sure. Realistically, would that ever happen? Probably not.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely. I'm going to argue that it is not the case. Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution. Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis;

Cladogenesis is not a specific type of mutation, it's just another word for speciation. I think you mean saltation, in which case you're still wrong.
Sure.

macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will growing fingers endlessly.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.
Which means microevolution is not a minor form of macroevolution. My point.

heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Logically possible? Sure. Realistically, would that ever happen? Probably not.
I agree.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:25:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will keep growing fingers endlessly.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:39:27 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will growing fingers endlessly.

No, you're pre-supposing that microevolution and macroevolution are categorically distinct. Even if your analogy is correct, you haven't show how or why.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.
Which means microevolution is not a minor form of macroevolution. My point.

Okay...let's look at it this way. There's twelve inches in a foot. Let's say you're five feet tall. Sure, it's possible that you may only grow another three inches and thus never reach 6', but it's still the same kind of growth.

Allele frequencies in a population may only vary slightly over time, and thus never "macroevolve," but there is no categorical distinction between slight variations and the accumulation of many slight variations.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 7:50:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:39:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will growing fingers endlessly.

No, you're pre-supposing that microevolution and macroevolution are categorically distinct. Even if your analogy is correct, you haven't show how or why.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.
Which means microevolution is not a minor form of macroevolution. My point.

Okay...let's look at it this way. There's twelve inches in a foot. Let's say you're five feet tall. Sure, it's possible that you may only grow another three inches and thus never reach 6', but it's still the same kind of growth.
No, when I hit 6' I won't turn into a angel, however I might turn white.
Your height analogy make this mutation sound likes it's a degree of change, something mutations are not. A microevolution/mutation that makes me stop being able to reproduce with my parents species is macroevolution anything else is an example of microevolution. When I hit 6' something magical won't change I'll just be taller, different, but still like my kin.

Allele frequencies in a population may only vary slightly over time, and thus never "macroevolve," but there is no categorical distinction between slight variations and the accumulation of many slight variations.
It's still a transition of a sort.

It's almost 2am and I have an early day tomorrow so...
'sup DDO -- july 2013
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 8:21:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:50:28 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:39:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will growing fingers endlessly.

No, you're pre-supposing that microevolution and macroevolution are categorically distinct. Even if your analogy is correct, you haven't show how or why.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.
Which means microevolution is not a minor form of macroevolution. My point.

Okay...let's look at it this way. There's twelve inches in a foot. Let's say you're five feet tall. Sure, it's possible that you may only grow another three inches and thus never reach 6', but it's still the same kind of growth.
No, when I hit 6' I won't turn into a angel, however I might turn white.
Your height analogy make this mutation sound likes it's a degree of change, something mutations are not. A microevolution/mutation that makes me stop being able to reproduce with my parents species is macroevolution anything else is an example of microevolution. When I hit 6' something magical won't change I'll just be taller, different, but still like my kin.

Fücking hell, Zets, are you that thick? Nothing magical happens when a population becomes reproductively isolated, either. That's the point. Usually, there's not even a clear point at which reproductive isolation occurs. Great Danes can't reproduce with Yorkshire Terriers, but they can reproduce with other dogs, which in turn can reproduce with Yorkies. There's a certain type of frog, I can't remember the name, but the ones living in the northern half of the United States can't reproduce with frogs of the same species in the southern regions. Experiments with D. melanogaster show that reproductive isolation (or at least reproductive barriers) can occur in just a few dozen generations.

Allele frequencies in a population may only vary slightly over time, and thus never "macroevolve," but there is no categorical distinction between slight variations and the accumulation of many slight variations.
It's still a transition of a sort.

So...you agree with me then?
Korashk
Posts: 4,597
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:17:19 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that macroevolution is speciation. That's all. Just a word to describe the event where one species changes to another.

Not a separate process in and of itself.
When large numbers of otherwise-law abiding people break specific laws en masse, it's usually a fault that lies with the law. - Unknown
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:21:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:17:19 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that macroevolution is speciation. That's all. Just a word to describe the event where one species changes to another.

Not a separate process in and of itself.

Macroevolution isn't clearly defined anywhere. Creationtards exploit this to say "herpa derp derp derp, I believe in microevolution but not macroevolution, trollolololololol!"
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:26:54 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:21:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

Macroevolution isn't clearly defined anywhere. Creationtards [...] "herpa derp derp derp

I think that is the definition.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:28:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species

Is it your claim that speciation has never been observed? What is the constraint that prevents it?
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:35:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species, heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

One, mutation is not the only vector for trait divergence, two, what you are describing is not impossible but is as likely as Kenyon going with Rogue to her next "spiritual experience" and having a bloody sex orgy and as a result Rogue gives birth to identical triples which are DNA-clones of GodSands.
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:41:06 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:26:54 PM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:
At 2/24/2011 9:21:55 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:


Macroevolution isn't clearly defined anywhere. Creationtards [...] "herpa derp derp derp

I think that is the definition.

That's not what Kirk Cameron says. Show me the crocoduck, dammit!
Puck
Posts: 6,457
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 9:48:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Macroevolution is the description of evolution above or at the level of species. Normally tied into over geologic time. Microevolution deals with variant traits within a population/species.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 10:13:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:41:06 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:

That's not what Kirk Cameron says.

I watched that video ""herpa derp derp derp", yes, that is exactly what he said, you actually got intelligible information from it?

Has he ever seen this :

http://en.wikipedia.org...

It is a fish-a-pod, half fish, half tetrapod. It has fish traits, tetrapod traits and traits that are fish/tetrapod in transition.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 10:17:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:48:50 PM, Puck wrote:

Macroevolution is the description of evolution above or at the level of species. Normally tied into over geologic time. Microevolution deals with variant traits within a population/species.

The completely silliest thing about this distinction is that species is a made up term, it has no objective distinction, there is even a fairly well known problem which is how to exactly define species. Note as well that species is not even a required label in modern rankings. Based on current evolutionary theory it should be obvious that is so because the changes are so small they are almost continuous so a discreet rank is not sensible anyway. Finally, most creationists no longer even define macro-evolution using species because of the species faq which makes it obvious even to the most ignorant that speciation happens. Almost everyone has switched to using "kind" to define macro-evolution because they can argue that no "kind" transition has been directly observed (all populations recorded).
Vi_Veri
Posts: 4,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 11:11:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Give microevolution a few billion years and it looks like macroevolution.
I could give a f about no haters as long as my ishes love me.
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 11:22:01 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely.

Nooo.... many members here think that instances of macroevolution are examples of prolonged microevolution.

I'm going to argue that it is not the case.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with you... but only because you formulated the position wrong.

Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution.

False.

Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis; macroevolution is required for speciation.

Yes.... he's almost got it!!

I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:

If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

</facepalm> Never mind.

That's a disnalogy. The changes of micoevolution are not all the SAME. They are all of SIMILAR MAGNITUDE. So if you grew a thumb plus an elbow, plus a shoulder, plus a finger (4x) plus a palm and a wrist, etc... then you would eventually have a new hand.

Ok - here's a good analogy.

Say you have a pile of Legos. And you have a car already built, but you keep adding legos, one brick at a time, and eventually you have a truck. Then you keep adding more bricks one at a time and you have a tank.

That is how it works.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species, heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Yes, but nobody is arguing that this doesn't happen. It certainly happens - take the horseshoe crab for example. Virtually unchanged in 60 million years.
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/24/2011 11:47:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 11:22:01 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Yes, but nobody is arguing that this doesn't happen. It certainly happens - take the horseshoe crab for example. Virtually unchanged in 60 million years.

Hey, be careful what you say about horseshoe crabs. "Unlike most species which go extinct after approximately 10 million years on average, the horseshoe crab has changed remarkably little in the last 250 million years." -Wikipedia.

Horseshoe crabs have blue blood which has medical uses. Horseshoe crabs congregate near power plant cooling pipes, where they are scooped up and drained of blood. Draining them of blood does not harm them, however ... a durable creature.
Grape
Posts: 989
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 12:39:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
There is no clearly defined qualitative difference between micro and macro evolution. You can't coherently believe in one and not the other unless you can establish that they vary somehow not just in degree but also in principle. Random analogies about fingers and hands don't do this, in fact they reinforce the fact that you're only talking about a difference in degree.

I'll just use an oversimplification so that my point can be easily understood. If a lizard can get bigger, better at swimming, etc. from one generation to the next, what stops that line of lizards from eventually becoming alligators?
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 1:26:24 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 11:47:03 PM, RoyLatham wrote:
At 2/24/2011 11:22:01 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Yes, but nobody is arguing that this doesn't happen. It certainly happens - take the horseshoe crab for example. Virtually unchanged in 60 million years.

Hey, be careful what you say about horseshoe crabs. "Unlike most species which go extinct after approximately 10 million years on average, the horseshoe crab has changed remarkably little in the last 250 million years." -Wikipedia.

Ok - so maybe I shorted the crab a lil =P
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 3:30:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely. I'm going to argue that it is not the case. Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution. Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis; macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:

If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species, heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Just putting my thoughts out there.

That is a great Godsands impersonation but your English was far too good.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 7:20:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 12:39:40 AM, Grape wrote:

There is no clearly defined qualitative difference between micro and macro evolution. You can't coherently believe in one and not the other unless you can establish that they vary somehow not just in degree but also in principle.

The general argument is that there is information in the DNA, this information can not be create aside from Intelligence, thus animals can only vary within their kind as to go outside the kind requires "new" information. It is a very vague argument as both the terms information and kind are not defined, aside from qualitative things such as when Hovind argues "Even a child can tell a dog and a wolf are the same kind, but a human and a rock are not." (paraphrase).
JustCallMeTarzan
Posts: 1,922
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 10:40:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
(Not saying Cliff has anything to do with this position at all, I just love Kent Hovind)

At 2/25/2011 7:20:22 AM, Cliff.Stamp wrote:

such as when Hovind argues

Oooh I can tell this will be good

"Even a child can tell a dog and a wolf are the same kind, but a human and a rock are not." (paraphrase).

God I love Kent Hovind. Never mind that a rock isn't actually alive and nobody says it evolved...
Cliff.Stamp
Posts: 2,169
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 11:05:20 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 10:40:31 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

God I love Kent Hovind.

You should see his son, he is like the father only Super Sayain.

Never mind that a rock isn't actually alive and nobody says it evolved...

Ken does, he argues (paraphrase) "Evolution says that you evolved from a rock.".

There is a YouTube debate between him and Massimo Pigliucci and when he brings it up, Massimo counters with (paraphrase) "Well you believe we all came from dirt." (genesis).

Hovind returns (paraphrase) "Yes, but God did that!".

Hovind is living proof we have a common ancestor with apes as he has the same analytical ability. Have you read his PhD thesis, it will literally make your brain melt.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 11:15:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 8:21:16 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:50:28 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:39:27 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:24:22 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:18:31 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation. I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:
If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

Begging the question.
lol wat? Begging the question would be: I will grow a third arm because I will growing fingers endlessly.

No, you're pre-supposing that microevolution and macroevolution are categorically distinct. Even if your analogy is correct, you haven't show how or why.

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species,

Possible? Of course. Relevant? Nope.
Which means microevolution is not a minor form of macroevolution. My point.

Okay...let's look at it this way. There's twelve inches in a foot. Let's say you're five feet tall. Sure, it's possible that you may only grow another three inches and thus never reach 6', but it's still the same kind of growth.
No, when I hit 6' I won't turn into a angel, however I might turn white.
Your height analogy make this mutation sound likes it's a degree of change, something mutations are not. A microevolution/mutation that makes me stop being able to reproduce with my parents species is macroevolution anything else is an example of microevolution. When I hit 6' something magical won't change I'll just be taller, different, but still like my kin.

Fücking hell, Zets, are you that thick? Nothing magical happens when a population becomes reproductively isolated, either. That's the point. Usually, there's not even a clear point at which reproductive isolation occurs. Great Danes can't reproduce with Yorkshire Terriers, but they can reproduce with other dogs, which in turn can reproduce with Yorkies.
It's called a ring species, it's not macro evolution.
There's a certain type of frog, I can't remember the name, but the ones living in the northern half of the United States can't reproduce with frogs of the same species in the southern regions. Experiments with D. melanogaster show that reproductive isolation (or at least reproductive barriers) can occur in just a few dozen generations.
Like the above.

There is a point were it splits of completely.

Allele frequencies in a population may only vary slightly over time, and thus never "macroevolve," but there is no categorical distinction between slight variations and the accumulation of many slight variations.
It's still a transition of a sort.

So...you agree with me then?
In that, yes.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 11:16:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 9:17:19 PM, Korashk wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
macroevolution is required for speciation.

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly sure that macroevolution is speciation. That's all. Just a word to describe the event where one species changes to another.

Not a separate process in and of itself.
Not exactly. Speciation is the process evolution is a event. Think respiration vs breathing.
'sup DDO -- july 2013
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 11:21:44 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/24/2011 11:22:01 PM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:
At 2/24/2011 7:06:36 PM, Zetsubou wrote:
Many members here think that microevoution will go on to become macroevolution indefinitely.

Nooo.... many members here think that instances of macroevolution are examples of prolonged microevolution.
The "microevolution over time will become macroevolution indefinatly" claim.

I'm going to argue that it is not the case.

I'm going to go ahead and agree with you... but only because you formulated the position wrong.

Microevolution and macroevolution are two different forms of evolution.

False.
ha ha ha

Macroevolution is not a vast degree of microevolution as many believe but a mutation that divides a species into two different species, cladogenesis; macroevolution is required for speciation.

Yes.... he's almost got it!!

I'd like pose this dilemma to show my point:

If I keep growing fingers endlessly will I ever have 3 hands?
I may very well do so but that's not to say I will indefinitely.

</facepalm> Never mind.

That's a disnalogy. The changes of micoevolution are not all the SAME. They are all of SIMILAR MAGNITUDE. So if you grew a thumb plus an elbow, plus a shoulder, plus a finger (4x) plus a palm and a wrist, etc... then you would eventually have a new hand.

Ok - here's a good analogy.

Say you have a pile of Legos. And you have a car already built, but you keep adding legos, one brick at a time, and eventually you have a truck. Then you keep adding more bricks one at a time and you have a tank.

That is how it works.
Yet, I could also add legos unlessly and have a messy object, no?

It's not impossible that species could microevolve endlessly and never change species, heck, it's not even impossible for a species to never mutate at all.

Yes, but nobody is arguing that this doesn't happen. It certainly happens - take the horseshoe crab for example. Virtually unchanged in 60 million years.
So you can one without the other.

Can you or can you not?
'sup DDO -- july 2013
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2011 12:49:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 2/25/2011 1:26:24 AM, JustCallMeTarzan wrote:

Ok - so maybe I shorted the crab a lil =P

Just watch what you say. Horseshoe crabs are a protected class with respect to equal rights under the United States Constitution. And if they are not now, they soon will be. Age discrimination against those over 60 million is rampant and must be stopped.