Subject:
|
Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 5 Jul 2002 20:37:21 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
5056 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, David Koudys writes about micro- and macro- evolution:
> > Its totally different--is night and day different--one the species remains
> > the same species--not like the other one which a species changes into
> > another species.
>
> That's just not so. In once case, the progenitor organism is very much like,
> but not identical to, the new organism. In the other case, the progenitor
> organism is very much like, but not identical to, the new organism. In the
> case of speciation, the "new" organism is usually unable to breed with the old
> one. And, correct me if I'm wrong, that's all.
You are wrong, and I will correct you. According to scientists (including
non-Creationist), the definitions are these:
Microevolution: The theory that natural selection, over time, take an
organism and transform it into a more specialized species of that organism
Macroevolution: The hypothesis that the same processes which work in
microevolution can, over eons of time, transform an organism into a
completely different kind of organism
Microevolution is simply variation in an organism within its genetic code. I
contain the genetic material for every member of the human species, as do
you. As does a dog for its species. Thus, microevolution is completely
understandable in terms of Mendelian genetics. In order for macroevolution
to occur, a species would have to add to it's genetic code. This can only
happen through mutation.
An interesting fact is that there is no beneficial recorded mutation in any
species.
> > Time frame, I agree, is irrelevant--50 years or 50000
>
> Agree with whom?
>
> > years, we're still going to lose our wisdom teeth due to the environment
> > that we happen to be in
>
> The dentist's office? :-)
Ah ha.
> > --does not make us less human than we were 50000 years ago.
>
> You could say, more human actually. Homo sapiens sapiens arose about 120,000
> years ago, but we have changed substantially during that time. But over about
> 500,000 years ago "we" were not human.
We know what you believe, Chris. No need to restate unless you're making a
point.
<snip>
Curt
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Evolution vs Scientific Creationism
|
| (...) I agree, and hope that Dave(!) will reconsider. Since it is a name of a belief/theory, and the name is reasonably illustrative of what the theorists are thinking about, I think the name is fit. (...) That's completely wrong. Plenty of (...) (23 years ago, 5-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
395 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
