Don't they realize that there's absolutely no common ground between different breeds of dog, like chihuahuas and greyhounds, and different species of cat, like lions and tigers? Obviously the former two are 100% the same and the latter two are 0% the same.
When will they realize that small amounts of changes over a long period of time never amount to big changes?! (This is why the theory of erosion is false too. Drops of water can't hollow a stone! Stones are hard!)
Just because evolution occurs on a small scale doesn't mean it occurs on a large scale. God is needed for the long-term stuff!
2007-03-12 22:41:01 · 10 answers · asked by God, Not Gravity! 1 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Dream on, dream on
Dream yourself a dream come true
Dream on, dream on
Dream until your dream come true
Dream on, dream on, dream on...
Sing with me, sing for the years
Sing for the laughter and sing for the tears
Sing with me, if it's just for today
Maybe tomorrow the good lord will take you away
Dream On - Aerosmith
2007-03-12 22:44:21 · answer #1 · answered by Maestro 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Macro and Microevolution are not actually supported and used scientific terms within the community. They really represent a meaningless and nonexistent division. Evolution is evolution, the same mechanisms are at work in all cases. If you mean to say that speciation has never occurred, you may want to read some of the scientific literature on the matter. Speciation has been observed. So, big changes do occur. And, isn't the accumulation of small changes, over a long period of time, going to result in a big divergence from the ancestral point - a big change? Why shouldn't a scientist believe that?
2007-03-12 22:48:50 · answer #2 · answered by Acid Bath Slayer 2 · 3⤊ 0⤋
First, water can and does have the ability to wear away stone. Water is abrasive, anyone can tell you that.
Secondly, macro-evolution and micro-evolution as merely euphamisms from creationists to simplify the terms "speciation" and "mutation" respectively.
Your use of two breeds of dog, which are no more different in species than a man with long blond hair and blue eyes is to a man with short brown hair and green eyes. That much is purely in-species diversity.
Tigers and Lions however have developed seperately to the point where, while they are still derivatives of the feline genus, they are seperate species.
A better analogy, which seems to be avoided by creationists, is the similarity between other canine family members such as domestic dogs and wolves which, although they share a common line of descent one being artificially descended from the other, they are a seperate species.
2007-03-13 03:32:17 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
(Sammer's answer is misleading. Both macro- and micro-evolution involve mutations. They also involve "limiting the gene pool." Each is a process by which certain variations are selectively given the opportunity to pass on their genes. In dog breeding, an example of artificial selection, the selecting is done by humans. In macroevolution, according to Darwin's theory, the selecting is done by nature. but the source of variation -- such as short muzzles on bulldogs -- is mutation in both examples.)
Anyway, back to the original question. You claim that dog breeds are 100% the same and lions and tigers are 0% the same. You're right to quantify the differences, but you're mistaken in your percentages. Genetically speaking, only identical twins are 100% the same. Chihuahuas and greyhounds are genetically distinct, although by only a small portion of their genome. (Follow the link below to an article about how scientists can distinguish dog breeds genetically. This would be impossible if they were "100% the same".)
Lions and tigers, on the other hand, are not 0% the same. They are over 90% genetically similar. In fact, they can even breed together, although their offspring are sterile. If you compare lions to river otters, you'll still see some similarity, but a lower percentage than lions to tigers. And if you compare lions to salmon, there's still a similarity, but smaller than lions and river otters. Then if you compare lions to fruit flies, there are some similarities but less than lions and salmon.
The overall picture, based on evidence from mitochondrial DNA, highly conserved proteins such as hemoglobin and cytochrome c, and a few totally mapped genomes, is a gradient similarity, not a discreet one. You use the word "obviously" in your example, but the evidence contradicts what appears to be "obvious" to you.
I can't tell if you're being ironic with your "Stones are hard" comment, but it illustrates one of the fundamental aspects of science: Sometimes careful investigation reveals something that seems counterintuitive. In other words, we "know" from our experience that rocks are hard, but the processes of weathering and erosion are well-documented. (Even Biblically. Look up Job 14:19) So it goes with evolution. Humans don't live long enough to witness "macroevolution", but there is enough evidence (including "microevolution") to suggest that it's a real phenomenon.
--------------------------
Oh wait. I looked at some of your other questions, and I see now that you're a prankster. Thanks for making me spend an hour looking for pictures of water-weathered rocks.
2007-03-13 05:43:48 · answer #4 · answered by Ben H 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I don't think you understand either concept. your exampes are of breed creation. This doesn't involve mutations, it involves limiting the gene pool to desired traits. This is the opposite of evolution. It's a limiting of genetic possibilities through animal husbandry, not the expanding of it through mutation. Through this process you cannot get to man from bacteria.
Micro evolution is caused by gene mutations and chromosomal events. If one believes in micro evolution he must believe in macro, at least in theory, because given enough micro you get a macro.
2007-03-12 22:45:08 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 0⤋
Guess what, Einstein, drops of water CAN hollow stone and DO on a regular basis. It just takes a very long time.
2007-03-12 23:09:45 · answer #6 · answered by Voodoid 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
organic and organic evolution is an mentioned actuality. this is been mentioned happening in the two residing species and in the fossil checklist. DNA evidence helps the theory that one and all residing issues are appropriate via straightforward ancestry. there is no debate in the medical community approximately whether evolution happens. the theory of evolution via organic determination is our ultimate explanation for why and how evolution happens. at the same time as scientists might debate multiple the biggest factors of the way it works, the straightforward concepts of the theory have not replaced heavily.
2016-11-25 00:10:10 · answer #7 · answered by ? 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Actually, that's exactly what it means.
Little things compose the bigger things.
Besides, "breeding" isn't even evolution. You're comparing two different things.
2007-03-12 22:45:51 · answer #8 · answered by meKrystle 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
At last someone on here who makes sense!
2007-03-12 22:52:43 · answer #9 · answered by Judas. S. Burroughs. 3 · 1⤊ 1⤋
lol, you bad, bad boy!!
2007-03-13 00:34:45 · answer #10 · answered by Kallan 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋