[Shivan Hunter]

My entire response to this thread (and indeed the OP himself) can be summarized in one short post consisting solely of the word "wat"

I shall proceed to make that statement

wat

[Aardwolf]

My entire response to this thread (and indeed the OP himself) can be summarized in one short post consisting solely of the word "wat"

I shall proceed to make that statement

wat

Indeed.

[watsisname]

how did we evolve into what we are today and if u explanation is correct then that would mean we are a mistake and that means your a mistake im a mistake u was never meant to be you was a acedent witch means u can drop dead without warning and if there was hot stuff that made the big bang wered that come from??

[Qent]

Evolution created it.

[Ravenholme]

I beleive in megaevolution

Well, insects are getting smaller due to decreasing oxygen content in the atmosphere compared to when they peaked.

But, to compensate, we do have larger mammals. So I guess evolution maintains a balance on it's megafauna/flora.

[Mongoose]

Good.  We don't need any three-foot-long dragonflies scaring the **** out of us.

[Herra Tohtori]

Three metres long dragons, however...

[karajorma]

Good.  We don't need any three-foot-long dragonflies scaring the **** out of us.

If they ate mosquitoes I could live with it.

****ing mosquitoes!

[watsisname]

I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh. 

[Mars]

I dunno, having a pet 3-foot long dragonfly sounds pretty cool tbh. 

Until it decapitates you

[babylon5comlink]

 

By the way I was being mostly serious but not any more---I am laughing to hard to care any more

[Mars]

By the way I was being mostly serious but not any more---I am laughing to hard to care any more

Hey, no worries. I was raised conservative Christian so I kinda know what you mean. People who believe in "microevolution" are people who don't believe in evolution but have been forced to concede that things evolve, but they want to pretend that species are somehow locked and can't gain/lose chromosomes etc.

In actuality, "microevolution" as you're putting it, is just evolution going about its business.

[Shivan Hunter]

Oh.

Well.

Neither one is something you 'believe in', per se, and they're certainly not mutually exclusive, as your post seemed to suggest.

This is coming from a short reading of their articles on Wikipedia, and I'm not an expert on the subject, but I think it's pretty obvious what they are. Microevolution is evolution on a small scale, concerning the mutations that make an individual species adapt. The term 'allele frequency'- how prevalent a certain trait is- is used a lot. Macroevolution concerns the sum of these mutations and is more about the adaptations of all the species in an environment.

The assumption that you don't know all this already comes from the question of which one we 'believe in'. Which, given what they are, makes no sense at all. They're two different approaches to the study of evolution. They're not really separate theories.

[General Battuta]

The term 'allele frequency'- how prevalent a certain trait is- is used a lot.

To get a bit more precise, an allele is a variant of a given gene, and its frequency is (as you say) how often it turns up in a population.

It's a measure of how 'popular' a mutation is.

[babylon5comlink]

Let me be more specific: I believe that microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.

By the way science cannot prove anything because science is always changing because of new discoveries.

[Shivan Hunter]

ooooooooooooooooookay.

:/

Since all I can think of to say would be incredibly inflammatory, this will be my last post in this thread. I will however be reading with much amusement.

[General Battuta]

Let me be more specific: I believe that microevolution occurs but macroevolution does not.

By the way science cannot prove anything because science is always changing because of new discoveries.

You're wrong.

I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. I will also watch with great amusement.

As an advisory to those interested in posting 'rebuttals': babylon5comlink is here to talk about what he believes. Science does not run on people's beliefs; it is based on data. Arguing with someone with this mindset is not going to get you anything but frustration - their attitudes on the topic are shaped by religion and dogma, not by any kind of rationality.

You can rest assured that evolutionary science will remain one of the most heavily tested, thoroughly reliable cornerstones of science whether or not this particular Internet denizen 'believes' in it.

I suggest that any escalation of the topic on OP's part be handled by a discussion of what's holding up the world. I suggest turtles.

[Herra Tohtori]

Ah yes, "macroevolution". The legendary process of one species allegedly transforming into another species, or appearance of previously unexistant organs of "irreducible complexity".

We have dismissed that claim.*


I challenge anyone to prove that so called "macro"evolution is impossible to happen through accumulated "micro"evolution. You'll fail, but it will be amusing for anyone who understands basic premises of biology, genetics and animal anatomy/morphology.


*I'm Herra Tohtori, and this is my favourite memetic mutation in Mass Effect 2.

[Qent]

@GB why do you always have to be like that?

I "believe in" macroevolution, but I don't know what Battuta is trying to show with that abstract. Even the mutated bacteria were still bacteria. I'm not really used to the distinction between macro- and microevolution.

[babylon5comlink]

I'll be forced to take any further argument as a sign of tragic under-education. ...

Just because I don't believe everything the scientists tell us does not mean that I am under educated. 

(By the way no hard feelings. I just like to debate with people )