---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 6:33 pm on Oct. 22, 2009

---

Quote: from Elm at 6:30 pm on Oct. 22, 2009

---

Macro or micro?

---

 
 I'd say macro but usually people who don't believe in evolution accept natural selection but not mutation (doesn't make sense to me but whatever).

---

As we have no direct observation for macro evolution it is untestable by the scientific method.

Macro remains a possibility that is still being researched - micro - yes we have witnessed it via direct observation.

---

---

I don't see how one can exist and not the other.

---

---

---

I don't see how one can exist and not the other.

---

We call this "Religion"

---

No, it's called running a bunch of simulations in your head and seeing that over time, they are one in the same.  Micro is just a zoomed in version of macro.  See the user Thunderfoot on Youtube for further explanation.

-------
"Rarely is the questioned asked: Is our children learning?"

You have to copy and paste the WHOLE link. I don't know why only one part is in green.

Post edited at 2:53 am on Oct. 25, 2009 by latric3

-------
Just a nobody trying to tell anybody about somebody who can do everything!

---

Quote: from Elm at 10:40 am on Oct. 24, 2009

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 6:33 pm on Oct. 22, 2009

---

Quote: from Elm at 6:30 pm on Oct. 22, 2009

---

Macro or micro?

---

  I'd say macro but usually people who don't believe in evolution accept natural selection but not mutation (doesn't make sense to me but whatever).

---

 

 As we have no direct observation for macro evolution it is untestable by the scientific method.  

 Macro remains a possibility that is still being researched - micro - yes we have witnessed it via direct observation.

---

They really kind of tie hand in hand though.  
I don't see how one can exist and not the other.

---

No they don't.  Minor changes ina  speices while still retaining viable breedable offspring while mating with memebrs prior the change do not change the species.  There needs to be a fundamental and underlying change that makes interbreeding impossible for speciation.

Horses and donkeys can produe a sterile offspring so they are not the same species.  All humans wether from a stock that is tall pale with straight hair can breed with a stock that short dark with curly.  Same with breeds of dog.

---

Minor changes ina  speices while still retaining viable breedable offspring while mating with memebrs prior the change do not change the species

---

---

---

Minor changes ina speices while still retaining viable breedable offspring while mating with memebrs prior the change do not change the species

---

Eventually it would?

---

Exactly.  It is a question still - it hasn't been shown.

There is evidencce for it, there is evidence against it.  We believe it to be the best explination but we aren't sure.

---

There needs to be a fundamental and underlying change that makes interbreeding impossible for speciation.

---

They took a genetically related species of bird (A different species, sir) and got them to mate. Only one of the offspring survived and it eventually died before being able to breed again.

Then they spotted this once thought to be extinct species of bird a few years ago and I guess they're "Endangered" again.

I would also like you to tell me what you think separates two populations into different species. Neanderthals were once generally thought to be a subspecies of our species but now are considered a different species although many scientists believe humans and Neanderthals mated. For a while they thought this skull of a child was a hybrid between them but he had some disease that fucked with his skull or something like that and they concluded he wasn't a hybrid. Professor Svante Paabo, director of genetics at the renowned Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, believes there was mating but no definitive proof exists.
Soon he claims he will publish the Neanderthal genome and show that mating occurred.

-------
"One of the Germans... would frequently snatch a child from the
woman's arms and... tear the child in half... Such incidents...
occurred all the time." - A Year in Treblinka, Yankel Wiernik,
Treblinka's "most authoritative eyewitness"

---

Quote: from Aimforthehead at 5:37 pm on Oct. 26, 2009

---

---

Minor changes ina  speices while still retaining viable breedable offspring while mating with memebrs prior the change do not change the species

---

 
 Eventually it would?

---

Exactly. It is a question still - it hasn't been shown.

There is evidencce for it, there is evidence against it. We believe it to be the best explination but we aren't sure.

---

The only thing we don't know about macro evolution is mutation, micro evolution proves mutation, ergo, macro evolution is proven.

-------
Admiration is the furthest thing from comprehension.

http://chem.tufts.edu/AnswersInScience//Pigliucci-IconsReview.html

Although he hasn't really contributed anything to the research in over a decade and has made a total of 4 peer reviewed articles on science in 25 odd years.

-------
"The larger the island of knowledge, the longer the
shoreline of wonder" (Ralph W. Sockman)

---

ELM:

---

There needs to be a fundamental and underlying change that makes interbreeding impossible for speciation.

---

How come some different bird species can breed and create fertile offspring?
I don't know any off the top of my head but back in the Florida Everglades they thought a bird species went extinct.
They went on some hunt and found 3 birds of this species - that was all. They aimed to preserve the species but the three birds they found were only males.

They took a genetically related species of bird (A different species, sir) and got them to mate. Only one of the offspring survived and it eventually died before being able to breed again.

 
Then they spotted this once thought to be extinct species of bird a few years ago and I guess they're "Endangered" again.

 
I would also like you to tell me what you think separates two populations into different species. Neanderthals were once generally thought to be a subspecies of our species but now are considered a different species although many scientists believe humans and Neanderthals mated. For a while they thought this skull of a child was a hybrid between them but he had some disease that fucked with his skull or something like that and they concluded he wasn't a hybrid. Professor Svante Paabo, director of genetics at the renowned Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology in Leipzig, believes there was mating but no definitive proof exists.
Soon he claims he will publish the Neanderthal genome and show that mating occurred.

---

Then I would suggest there is not sufficient speciation to call either the birds separate species.  And an idea of interbreedn with neaderthal and conclusive proof are two very different things.

This does address a problem in identifying a true difference in species that has plagued biology since the beginning.  Each year entire branches of animal life are moved based on new evidence some species are added while some are merged with others.

It is imprecise at best though I do like to think we are making progress.

Here is an interesting paper on the problem and possible solution:
http://www.springerlink.com/content/2bf5f9jpwn482447/