Could you eventually reach 1,000,000 if you started with 1 & then kept adding 1? 1+1+1+1+1+1... etc?

Question

Could you eventually get to 1,000,000 by taking very very very small, incremental steps towards such an end?

Also...

Is the distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution a bit silly?

Balaam's Donkey, awwww I know, but I had to try.

Angel Drawers, for all your self-proclaimed brilliance, you still don't know that evolution has never suggested that "humans came from apes"?

Before I pick a best answer, I just wanted to let Hexley know that I appreciate the input. Here's what I found on PBS, and I think it's saying the same thing:

"Humans did not evolve from monkeys. Humans are more closely related to modern apes than to monkeys, but we didn't evolve from apes, either. Humans share a common ancestor with modern African apes, like gorillas and chimpanzees. Scientists believe this common ancestor existed 5 to 8 million years ago. Shortly thereafter, the species diverged into two separate lineages. One of these lineages ultimately evolved into gorillas and chimps, and the other evolved into early human ancestors called hominids. "

Answer 1

yes and yes-but you cant get to 1000000 by starting at zero and adding nothing--just my thoughts-smile and enjoy the day

Answer 2

Hey, Hammy! Long time no snort.

We didn't come from apes per se. Our humad line are the Hominids that broke away from the apes line about 4.4 million years ago so modern man has developed from early Hominids to now.

We could bligthly say we came from single cell organisms about 4 billion years ago and be right. The correctness here is that we developed on a much different path than modern apes.

Emma -- How's 86?
I believe doubling will beget many millions if doubled every way for one month. Like the growth of bacteria - doubling and re-doubling over a certain period of time.

Evolution can take many paths at once. Both the Hippo and the lion, for instance, have very powerfull traits that let them survive together in much of Africa.

Humans have been assistinf evolution along ever since they brought home wolves to live with them. They kept the ones that suited them and those ones were bred over and over. Look at all the different dogs we have now. Quite incredible.

We have also assisted evolution when we were changing from hunter gatherers to farmers. Wheat has had great evolutionary traits that likely would not have happened by themselves for the simple reason the various wheats we have now would not survive on their own.

We have done the same with some many flowers - roses, gladiolas, and so many more. We have done the same with many apples and peas and on and on.

With modern genetics we can evolve our plants and animals even greater.


In nature the evolutionary changes are much less noticable but they are happening all the time. Most changes don't very well survive but many on the same evolutionary path do. If an evolutionary change comes about it does not mean that the line the change has come from dies out. As a matter of fact evolutionary changes from a survivour species is much more likely one to survive. If we think of survival of the species is the only way we survive we are grossly wrong but; evolution certainly plays a giant role in species survival.

Answer 3

Being that the questioner already has her head in the right place, I'll take this opportunity to attack a dangerous, seductively well-written, but still typically ignorant creationist post in this thread.

>>This ancestor to us and the apes would likely be even more animalistic than many of today's apes (unless de-volution occurred).

First and foremost, there is no such thing as "de-volution." There is no such thing as "more animalistic." There is no such thing as "more evolved" or "less evolved." Evolution is the process by which animals change via the mechanism of natural selection. Evolution is NOT a proccess by which animals become more intelligent, more humanlike, or more advanced. How do you think the rhinocerous evolved? Something in its environment made bigness and toughness more favorable of an attribute.

The basis for evolution is this: Micro-evolution, to use the term that Creationists made up, is a fact; it's been observed. Scientists believe that fossils like Lucy, being that they're so similar to us, might actually be our ancestors. Other cases have been found where evolution seems likely to have occured. One famous one is "Darwin's finches," which basically means that we can observe characteristics in finches that have evolved to suit their habitats. In addition, the fact that all living things are very similar in terms of DNA (and indeed that we're all made of cells, and these cells have DNA/RNA) is strong evidence for common ancestry. Darwin wrote a theory which contains hypotheses for how all these things could have occured.

It is a proper scientific theory, and therefore proper scientific evidence can be found supporting or refuting it. If scientists ever find a case in which the theory of evolution is not adequate, or is contradicted, then the theory will be revised to reflect this exception.

There hasn't been one yet.

One last thing to cap off this totally unneccecarily long post:

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/3541_project_steve_2_16_2003.asp

Say hello to the 844 Steves, Stephans, and Stephanies who are part of Project Steve. You know how there are a few lists of scientists who are skeptical of evolution? And you know how people used to use the ~100 names on those lists to claim that "most scientists disbelieve evolution?" Well, Project Steve is a list of scientists who believe that evolution is a solid theory unlikely to be disproven, and every single one of them is named Steve. As the project says, the next time someone shows you a list of scientists who reject evolution, ask them "How many are named Steve?"

Answer 4

Don't let anyone judge you. You're likely to get a lot of really inflammed retarded answers for this post. Just about every baby takes a tiny tumble like this. It doesn't make you a bad parent! As long as he's not acting unusual (such as being overly tired suddenly or vomiting) he should be fine. If he landed on carpet the worst he may encounter is some carpet burn if he skidded a little on the landing. If he hit a hard floor you may just wanna check for any bruising. If you're still very concerned in the morning you might want to place a call to his pediatrician. **edit** wow after reading all the posts of the ladies before me I'm so happy none of meanies came out for this one. Kudos to all the ladies for being so supportive :)

Answer 5

Zero, sorry about this, but I'm going to have to complain about your scientifically inaccurate comments...

Many of us have and do claim that humanity is descended from apes, namely because humans currently are apes via the definitions of modern taxonomy. An ape, via the modern definition, is any member of superfamily Hominoidea, the superfamily that includes the families commonly called "lesser apes", and "great apes". We happen to be a great ape. Claims that were aren't apes come from an older insistence that we be classified differently than our closest relatives, even when it didn't follow convention.

Our most recent non-ape ancestor occurred ~25 mya back when we diverged from old world monkeys.

Oh, and yes, the distinction is silly :P

Answer 6

No, not at all. They are totally different and happen for different reasons. And believing in natural selection (which I do), still doesn't explain the linkage from ape to human when there is evidence (apes) that there has been no environmental need for such a change to occur. Have there been remains of "man" that is less developed and more ape-like that today's humans? Yes. Is this conclusive evidence that we came from apes? No.

Edit: Suggesting that we share the SAME ape-like ancestor which apes came from would suggest pretty much the same thing. This ancestor to us and the apes would likely be even more animalistic than many of today's apes (unless de-volution occurred). Also, we all start off with "gills" as well so is it correct to assume that you believe that we all originally came from the ocean?

Edit: I know that evolution doesn't have to mean evolving into a more intelligent being (that's not what i meant). But supposing our (human and chimps) common ancestor was more "human-like," physically and mentally. How would some of these descendants eventually evolve into even more human-like beings, while others develop less human-like features than their ancestor? Thus, the logical conclusion must mean that a our common ancestor was less human-like and more ape-like. Essentially saying that we did in fact come from apes--just not any of the apes that exist today.

Answer 7

I think I remember a math teacher telling us that by starting with one and doubling the number everyday, we could reach a million in a surprisingly short time (I can't remember--it's been about 30 years ago). Yes, the distinction between macro and micro is silly.

Answer 8

Microevolution is a small change. Macro is a large change. So yes the distinction is needed. Of course if you meant the people who say micro occurs and macro doesn't those people are just dumb.

Answer 9

It would take something like a million steps. (Allow me my vagary for humor.) The Creationist would get board after a bit, and say that "God did it!" is easier than counting.

The distinction between micro- and macro-evolution is one of scope of study, the minutiae and the sweeping process, respectively. Same process, different scope.

Answer 10

1. Of course. If you did this at one operation per second, it would take about twelve days.

2. It is not just a bit silly -- it is totally silly. Not to mention a complete waste of time, as evolution is now a proven fact (proof details are available on request), and if you add up enough micros, you can get as macro as you please.

Answer 11

This question makes me lose a little faith in humanity. Did you expect an answer like "No, once you get to 567,893, you can't add 1 to it?"