Subject:
|
Re: Why do we know all of this? (was Re: evolution)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 8 Mar 2000 16:28:27 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1077 times
|
| |
|
|
Mr L F Braun wrote:
> Ack! My eyeballs just had a seizure! Galapagos. :) Those are all still
> microevolutionary--macroevolution, it's generally believed, requires a strong shift
> in environments, which may be underway now (though we won't see the results for a
> long time). There's also the question of what constitutes "macro," since that's a
> notoriously subjective term--what is "big" or "little?" Darwin's contribution was
> the principle of Survival of the Fittest; full-blown evolutionary theory is way too
> big to be the creation (pun unintended, please don't send me to .pun) of any one
> person.
I disagree with the term "Survival of the Fittest," shouldn't it be
something more like "Reproduction of the Fittest(1)?" Darwin and some of
his contemporaries did create the theory of evolution through natural
selection,
one of the first evolutionary ideas that could be proven scientifically.
Macroevolution is thought of by some scientists as the effects of
cumulative
microevolution. Others think it works by a different process altogether.
Either way large evolutionary leaps(2) do happen, most of the cause can be
attributed to strong environmental change. Macroevolution(usually) results
in a speciation event.
-chris
1- fitness, refers to the individuals that have the highest reproductive
output.
2- remember evolution doesn't always produce a increase in complexity or
"something that is better"
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
541 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
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
