I have a question..possibly for those who believe in Macro evolution.?

Question

So heres what I wonder. Im not sure it pretains to macro evolution or not, but seems like it should apply. How can you explain why creatures were created by pure chance and started thier quest of mico evolution, but some evolved into carbon copies of themselves, while others decided to have indivual markings? Just an example...People, none look exactly the same, Zebras all have different stripes, trees all grow in different angles....while a one Robin looks exactly like another, one jellyfish of the same species looks exactly like another, blades of grass in the same genis look exactly the same. These are just a few examples that popped to mind. Anyone have thoughts on how this could occur? Since to believe in Macro evoultion, we all crawled out of the same swamp?

Answer 1

Macroevolution refers to evolution that occurs at or above the level of species, in contrast with microevolution, which refers to smaller evolutionary changes (typically described as changes in allele frequencies) within a species or population. The process of speciation may fall within the purview of either, depending on the forces thought to drive it. Paleontology, evolutionary developmental biology, and comparative genomics contribute most of the evidence for the patterns and processes that can be classified as macroevolution. An example of macroevolution is the appearance of feathers during the evolution of birds from one group of dinosaurs.

Macroevolution is controversial in two ways:

It is disputed among biologists whether there are macroevolutionary processes that are not described by strictly gradual phenotypic change, of the type studied by classical population genetics. Within the Modern Synthesis school of thought, microevolution is thought to be the only mode of evolution (i.e. what is sometimes thought of as "macroevolution" actually consists of the compounded effects of microevolution - the only difference between them is one of time and scale).
A misunderstanding about this biological controversy has allowed the concept of macroevolution to be coopted by creationists. They use this controversy as a supposed "hole" in the evidence for deep-time evolution.

Microevolution is the occurrence of small-scale changes in allele frequencies in a population, over a few generations, also known as change at or below the species level.

These changes may be due to several processes: mutation, natural selection, gene flow, genetic drift and nonrandom mating.


Population genetics is the branch of biology that provides the mathematical structure for the study of the process of microevolution. Ecological genetics concerns itself with observing microevolution in the wild. Typically, observable instances of evolution are examples of microevolution; for example, bacterial strains that have antibiotic resistance.

Microevolution can be contrasted with macroevolution; which is the occurrence of large-scale changes in gene frequencies, in a population, over a geological time period (i.e. consisting of lots of microevolution). The difference is largely one of approach. Microevolution is reductionist, but macroevolution is holistic. Each approach offers different insights into evolution.

Answer 2

Your information is all over the map. You must look at types of reproduction to most of your answers. Whether you believe in evolution or creation or some combination of both, your answer lies in DNA (or RNA for some "lower" organisms) and the variation of alleles within any given organism. Some things look the same due to limited variation in alleles while others are different. Now, if you asking how people believe that DNA evolved... well that is a question better put in a science category, either chemistry or biology - it will fit both.

And not all grass looks the same, shades of colour, shape/straightness, height etc can look different. What looks alike to you, does not have to look alike to others. Some people will still argue that "all Asians look alike" - while I can usually tell the difference between Chinese, Japanese, Filipino and Korean people.

Answer 3

Are you a carbon copy of either of your parents?
No....
It's because of meiosis. Gamete reproduction. We get half of our genes from each parent, so everyone has a different combination of genes. You may think that all robins and jellyfish are alike, but I'm willing to bet that a biologist would say otherwise; it's not just outward appearances that are passed on from parent to child.
As for different species arising, ever hear of genetic mutation? It's what happens when the DNA that halves itself during cell reproduction (mitosis or meiosis) recombines in a slightly different order, thus producing a new kind of gene, and (sometimes) a new trait in the offspring. As for the rest, go look it up on Google. Plenty of good explanations on the Web.

Answer 4

in case you would be unable to verify that then you particularly do in basic terms no longer understand something approximately them. Creationism is magic. by technique of definition that's what it particularly is. In creationism and clever layout, the proposed author is supernatural this is yet another be conscious for magic. How is "magic" a logical rationalization? Macro-evolution and the great bang are shown in case you do no longer think of they're then you particularly are in basic terms unaware of the info because of the fact no longer in user-friendly terms are the shown yet they're shown in such beautiful element that maximum lay human beings have not any theory in basic terms how shown they're. i think the rationalization you do no longer think of they're logical is considering the fact which you have under no circumstances genuinely heard of them. you have under no circumstances heard macro-evolution, or the great bang, appropriate defined to you by technique of somebody who knows what the hell they're speaking approximately. you have in all probability in user-friendly terms ever heard it from different creationists, and have confidence me their psychological image of those issues is a sketch. no longer something better than a pathetic parody that has definitely no resemblance to the genuine technological expertise.

Answer 5

humans pretty much look the same on the inside; I've never heard of a medical break through where a doc has found purple blood with a poke-a-dot colored kidney and plasic tanks for lungs or something.....how different are creatures? on the outside--a little---on the inside---the damn same. and that's what counts. no two blades of grass are alike.

Answer 6

I think that people look different because we have adapted to our specific habitat. People that have darker skin are generally originally from areas that were very sunny, so they needed more melanin in their skin to protect them from the sun. People with more fair skin generally originated from areas where the sun is not as strong, so they didn't need as much melanin. The same thing happens with animals or plants. They pretty much all look them same depending on the area in which they originate.

Answer 7

yikes.

son, you don't need an "answer" from here, you need to take a biology class... AWAY from your church.

the explanations would make your head explode if you don't have a basic grasp of biology, natural selection, genetics, and basic evolution

you know, basic evolution like that which we see today. such as: bacteria. some reproduce and don't mutate. some do mutate, and create new strains as they fight to survive agaisnt the antibiotics that we create to kill them. these new strains become resistant in their evolving evolutionary growth, requiring modern medicine to create new antibiotics to fight the new strains. you familiar with that?

Answer 8

There are two faulty premises with your question:

The first is that creatures are created by pure chance.

The second is that there are two types of evolution:micro and macro.

Since neither of these is true, your question can't really be answered as asked.

Answer 9

Some points.

1. We are programmed to see differences between our most neighbourly kin. But remember that penguins can all recognise their young amidst flocks of many thousands, and that female fish and other animals can be very choosy about who they select as a mate.

2. The vexed issue with "macro" and "micro" evolution is one that should have more light shed on it. Creationists believe that only "micro" evolution occurs, which means relatively small changes in a species such as can be brought about by breeding practices. (Shot yourself in the foot there, magpieix). Creationists believe that God created dogs about 6000 years ago, and that the divergence we see in species today is “micro-evolution”, and that means that dogs are still one species and can all reproduce together. Nevertheless, there are some pretty drastic changes. Look at the difference between a Chihuahua and a Great Dane, and a Border Collie. They are quite dramatic, aren’t they?

3. It should be pointed out that families within species (like the breeds of dogs mentioned above) do not forever retain the ability to reproduce together. This often becomes an anatomical impossibility, as the body size and shape (morphology) of the organisms begin to differ more dramatically, both because of the awkwardness of sexual congress between such individuals, and the risks of carrying an embryo from such a pairing to term. Also, other genetic factors come into play, making pregnancy less and less likely as the families diverge. This further accelerates the divergence between the families because they become effectively quarantined from one another.

4. The fact that families within a species which ONCE could breed together can lose that ability, should give antievolutionists pause for thought. For the ability to breed together is an important defining border of what it means to be part of one species. Good examples of family members of a species on the cusp of becoming infertile relative to each other are tigers and lions. The offspring of unions between the two are called tigons or ligers, and although mating, conception and birth are very rare, it does demonstrate that these cats originate from a common ancestor. Nevertheless, once they lose that ability, now very much weakened anyway, they could well be regarded as separate species. In this case, a creationist who did not know the pedigree of these animals could well assume that they had been created separately by God, and argue that there is no way that they could have had a common ancestor, “because look how different they are”.

5. This leads on to the general point that definition of where one species begins and another ends is a lot more rubbery than many people assume. For example, did you know that Whale skeletons show the presence of atrophied legs? Well, at one stage (no joking) whales got about on land, and slowly took to the seas. They are, after all, mammals. But if you had had the opportunity to take a photo of one such (now-extinct) terrestrial whale, and showed that photo together with a photo of a modern Sperm Whale to a creationist, and told him that these two creatures had a common ancestor, he would probably laugh at you and tell you that this was typical evolutionary absurdity.

6. The crux of the matter comes to this. Creationists, (particularly Young Earth Creationists) believe that Life began on Earth about 6000 years ago. Now just for the sake of argument, let us suppose - just for the moment and in order to indulge me - that life began on Earth roughly 3.8 thousand million (that’s 3.8 billion) years ago, as scientists now estimate. In such a scenario, it is quite rational to think that much much larger variations within species would have occurred. Look at the changes that have occurred in dog breeds in just 6000 years. To see some of them, you would hardly know they were of the same species unless you prior knowledge. Think of how different a polar bear, and a panda bear and grizzly are from each other, yet creationists admit these all had a common ancestor. Now imagine what could be possible if you had not 6000 years to play with, not 60,000 years, not 600,000 nor even 6 million, nor even 60 million, nor even 600 million, but a massive 3.8 BILLION years for Nature to work with these species! Looking at what Nature has done in 6000 years with the bear family; and imagine what could be possible over such unimaginably longer time spans.

7. Want to see some living evidence for macroevolution at its most fundamental? Round these parts (Australia) we have an astonishing animal called the platypus. Look it up on Wikipedia. It’s so strange that when botanists sent back samples to Mother England in the late 18th century, some experts over there thought it was a hoax – bits of other animals glued onto each other. The platypus is one of earliest of the mammals, at the cusp when the mammals were dividing from the reptiles and birds. It has fur like an otter but a bill like a bird. It lays eggs like a reptile but it suckles its young like a mammal. Here is a living fossil, kept alive only by good fortune in being quarantined in Australia, where there were many fewer predators and competitors for food

So, sure, microevolution makes changes in species in the short term. But if we accept that Life on Earth is very ancient indeed, then we can easily imagine that those small variations, over very very long periods of time, become macroevolution, creating new species via natural selection and genetic drift, so that it becomes hard to credit, from a cursory inspection, that these radically different organisms are distant cousins, and had a common ancestor.

Answer 10

They didn't evolve by chance. You are forgetting about Natural Selection, which is the exact opposite of chance.