Macroevolution

[BlueTear]

Yeah, what's up with all this chatter about mutations? Random changes in the genetic code of individuals has precious little part in evolution beyond the single-cell stage (some bacteria share DNA so freely you don't even need it to progress behind that to get some seriously freaky combinations). After that _natural selection_ and the natural genetic variety that arises from sexual reproduction takes care of the rest.

 

 

 

Less X-men, more evolution.

[Satenza]

My argument against macroevolution is that it can't be proven. I'm not trying to disprove macroevolution I'm just pointing out the Fallacies and misconceptions of macroevolution.

 

 

 

I agree it can't be proven and it is a form of pseudoscience, is this your only critisism? Do you by any chance believe in Microevolution?

 

 

 

Most people for macroevolution on these forums argue that mutation is what causes macroevolution, regardless if this is true or not does not prove that macroevolution has ever or will ever happen. I'm also saying that cells don't choose good/bad mutations. And if a mutations are generally bad then the outcomes of mutations are generally bad. How is this hard to follow?

 

 

 

Obviously cells do not choose mutations, and if mutations are generally bad then their outcomes are generally bad. That only supports the evolutionairy theory.

 

 

 

What remains is that Evolution is the only plausible theory to the creation of the humans.

[gonpost]

 

[bleep], XplsvBam, use some common sense. Stop thinking so literally. The organism doesn't choose, the cells don't choose. Duh. There are mutations (completely by chance), and those mutations that are detrimental to the creature will cause it to not reproduce or to die out in time because it cannot live in its environment. If it, on the other hand, produces a mutation that is beneficial to surviving in its environment or allows it to access something new as a food source, then it will go on to live and procreate because it can survive in its environment well. This is called natural selection (essentially). And by the way, mutations can be very small, such as a bird with a slightly larger than normal beak size or something, allowing it to break open a type of nut that its parents couldn't have because they had smaller beaks. That's just an example.

 

 

 

You have a fundamental misunderstanding of even the most basic concepts of evolution and natural selection. Please, teach yourself.

First off generally mutations are bad. If by chance you get a beneficial mutation you have already, more than likely, wiped out a species. But this is how I interpret mutation, if it is generally bad the outcome is going to be generally bad. This is basic common sense.

 

 

 

Second, what you just described with the birds beak would explain that mutation would know when to occur, this is not the case. The beak would adapt but it would not mutate.

 

 

 

You haven't necessarily "wiped out the species". It's simply that another species is born. Perhaps the first species survived along with the second.

 

 

 

And no, with my bird's beak example, it does not "know" when to occur. There simply happened to be a tree that has been around for a very long time which happens to have rather large nuts, and the bird happened to have that mutation while this species of tree is around. To be honest I shouldn't really call these "mutations", it's more natural selection. I'm just using that word to get the idea across that it is an unintended variant of the norm.

 

 

 

However, I believe we agree that macroevolution doesn't exist? We agree that it is really just a bunch of microevolution over time, yes?

 

 

 

If so, then you should know that you're arguing microevolution with me...just so you know...

 

 

 

Oh, and adaption is completely different from evolution or anything else. Adaption requires no genetic or physical change what so ever. You could say humans adapted by wearing coats in colder climates, for instance.

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

And no, with my bird's beak example, it does not "know" when to occur. There simply happened to be a tree that has been around for a very long time which happens to have rather large nuts, and the bird happened to have that mutation while this species of tree is around.

Right. :wink:

 

 

 

It just so happened that this bird didn't mutate into a different species before this, it just stumbled upon the actual beneficial mutation that would save it.

 

 

 

Of course there is no way it could have developed organs that would allow it to eat other food besides these nuts. Because if it would have evolved in this manner then predators would have been able to get at it. And the cells realized this and skipped that bad mutation.

 

 

 

And of course it didn't evolve into a specie that didn't need a beak because that would have also wiped out the species.

 

 

 

You seem to be missing the point of macroevolution. Macroevolution is LONGTERM.

 

 

 

Another critique of your bird example. Let's pretend there are two species of a similar bird. One with a large strong beak and one with a slim beak. During times of lots of rain the slim beak would be able to eat the nuts and would have a boom in the population. During times of less rain the slim beak bird would have to eat worms and such and would experience a bust in the population.

 

 

 

There is not enough data to say one way or the other. By saying that the bird actually mutated into a different species is ignorant of the possiblity that that specie was infact already there. IF you could disprove that the species wasn't already there then maybe your bird example would hold some water.

[gonpost]

 

And no, with my bird's beak example, it does not "know" when to occur. There simply happened to be a tree that has been around for a very long time which happens to have rather large nuts, and the bird happened to have that mutation while this species of tree is around.

Right. :wink:

 

 

 

It just so happened that this bird didn't mutate into a different species before this, it just stumbled upon the actual beneficial mutation that would save it.

 

 

 

Of course there is no way it could have developed organs that would allow it to eat other food besides these nuts. Because if it would have evolved in this manner then predators would have been able to get at it. And the cells realized this and skipped that bad mutation.

 

 

 

And of course it didn't evolve into a specie that didn't need a beak because that would have also wiped out the species.

 

 

 

You seem to be missing the point of macroevolution. Macroevolution is LONGTERM.

 

 

 

Another critique of your bird example. Let's pretend there are two species of a similar bird. One with a large strong beak and one with a slim beak. During times of lots of rain the slim beak would be able to eat the nuts and would have a boom in the population. During times of less rain the slim beak bird would have to eat worms and such and would experience a bust in the population.

 

 

 

There is not enough data to say one way or the other. By saying that the bird actually mutated into a different species is ignorant of the possiblity that that specie was infact already there. IF you could disprove that the species wasn't already there then maybe your bird example would hold some water.

 

 

 

*sigh*

 

 

 

Dude, I give up on you. You're still thinking LINEARLY. You still think A leads to B leads to C etc. I even said that both species could exist at the same time, yet you still said that one is replacing the other. If that were always the case, we'd only have one species of anything because it'd always have to replace its predecessor, which obviously isn't the case.

 

 

 

You also seem to think that there are only one or two of every species...no, my friend. There are, at the very least, hundreds (provided the species wasn't just newly "evolved"), and at the best, billions. This gives way to plenty of chance.

 

 

 

And I believe you ignored a large portion of my post...because you commented on macroevolution, which I clearly said was not the topic of my discussion towards you, and I clearly think that the idea of macroevolution is, in reality, microevolution over time.

 

 

 

We also already said that the idea of a cell "knowing" anything is absolutely ludicrous, yet you continue to uphold that we are saying that, when we are clearly not.

 

 

 

Your comment about the bird with no beak makes absolutely no sense. We already established that a bad mutation or change in the species would most likely result in its death.

 

 

 

Your second to last paragraph didn't make any sense. If there aren't as many nuts, it's as simple as many of the birds of that specie will die.

 

 

 

Your last paragraph makes no sense. It's like you're telling me the earth was made 10,000 years ago, which, by the way, is so completely illogical and implausible compared to the theory of evolution that there should be no comparison. Forgive me if I took you wrong there and you aren't actually saying that.

 

 

 

Anyway, I'm done with this, you're impossible to argue with.

[Dalcyte]

To bari's comment about me saying chimp's dna is almost identical to ours:

 

 

 

Firstly, it isn't 100% the same, its around 96-99%

 

 

 

if you don't believe me...

 

 

 

The chimpanzee and human genomes are more than 98% identical

 

 

From:http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2006/10/061013104633.htm

 

 

 

Scientists have sequenced the genome of the chimpanzee and found that humans are 96 percent similar to the great ape species.

 

From:http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2005/08/0831_050831_chimp_genes.html

 

 

 

You mentioned that DNA determines, well, what we look like...but this isn't true necessarly. DNA in a sense does absolutely nothing really. DNA just sits there in the nucleus of a cell, and RNA Polymerase goes around and copies a single helix from it, and then proteins are made through a complex process. DNA's and RNA's purpose is to be a master copy to be copied for Protien synthesis respectively.

 

 

 

This means, that we do look very similar, compare us. Those extra 2% and 4% are how we differ, the rest of those %s make up the body structure, bones, etc as well as protiens...so saying that if we were 96%-98% similar to chimp DNA and then saying we would be chimps and would be swinging from trees is just wrong...(unless you're a kid and like to swing from trees :P )

 

 

 

[insane]

Microevolution x Time = Macroevolution.

 

 

 

You're way off.

 

 

 

It's microevolution + time, obviously.

[Satenza]

I would have thought it would be Times, since you have to account for the billions of species Macroevolution includes as a pose to Microevolution.

[warri0r45]

A few things.

 

 

 

a few things:

 

 

 

First off, we don't evolve right now through macroevolution because our environment is not changing at a significant pace. If it suddenly got 40 degrees hotter (which is not ruled out in primordial earth) all of a sudden, and dried up water sources everywhere, the people suited for heat would be more adapt to survive...and we'd see more heat adapt humans.

 

 

 

Anyway, we didn't evolve from orangutans..chimps actually...and it doesn't matter if we don't look exactly alike (even though in a lot of cases we do), just check the DNA, they're 96%-99% exactly, 100% the same.

 

 

 

DNA is a complete mapping of our genes, that determines everything from appearance to behavior. The notion that our DNA is 100% identical to primates is simply...moronic...

 

 

 

The only thing we have in common with primates is the most shared genetic markers. More than any other living thing on Earth. However, these shared markers are just a fraction of a whole strand of DNA.

 

 

 

If we had 96-100% identical DNA to monkies, we'd be climbing trees and eating fleas off of our offspring at this moment.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

And to Warri0r:

 

 

 

Macroevolution is drastically different from microevolution. Someone gave an example of a drastic heating change? Although his example is extreme (all humans would die at that temperature within a day), we would simply adapt over time to a smaller climate change. We would still be humans, just a little more galvanized.

 

 

 

And my problem with humans is still in effect. 1)The humans with negative mutations still have a chance to procreate and pass along their genes just as much as those with beneficial mutations. However, 2)mutations do not last.

 

 

 

3)Another: Move into a desert area with a lot of sunlight. You will tan. Over time, your descendants will be born darker and darker. Now, they move to a northern region with less sunlight. Over time, they will become lighter and lighter.

 

 

 

Microevolution explains this as simple adaptation to the environment, fluid and temporary. 4)Macroevolution would say that these people would be dark forever, until a better offer from genes came along. Which honestly makes more sense?

 

 

 

1) Humans with negative mutations do not always have a chance to procreate nor will they procreate as much as a completely healthy individual or an individual with a beneficial mutation, i.e. one that aids in thier strength/health and thus thier ability to procreate. Don't just apply it to humans, we're a special case, for obvious reasons. Bad mutations will die out, silent mutations will have no effect and good mutations will proliferate. It's just common sense.

 

 

 

2)Mutations do not last? A mutation in a germ line cell will last for that offsprings entire life, and depending on if it is good (higher frequency for mating) or bad (lesser frequency for mating or possibly death), it can and will be passed on to it's offspring, and it's offspring's offspring, and it's offspring's offspring's offspring etc. Good mutations can and will last. It's just common sense.

 

 

 

3) of course that would hapen, you know why? Because the genes which code for the beneficial adaptation would proliferate due to the health of the host organisms. IMAGINE IF THE POPULATION MOVED INTO A DESERT AREA AND STAYED THERE. Thier skin would remain dark and any other mutations which aid in the health of the population would proliferate! There are no barriers stopping this from occuring (I'm still willing to hear of any) and therefore an adaptation, as you call it, would stay in the population's gene pool and proliferate.

 

 

 

4) So you're saying that we migrate to desert, adapt to darker skin, migrate north and according to macroevolution we all have to stay that way forever untill better mutations mean that lighter skin is gained again? Yes, that's what happens. You're line of thinking is really puzzling me. Please, explain, in terms of genetics, how we gain an adaptation, migrate where it is undesirable and how it goes back to how it was previously.

 

 

 

Any offspring with beneficial mutations (yes, they are rare but they do happen and are multiplied by different factors) will have a greater chance to procreate and spread thier genes. The genes that are in an organism will never change and will always be passed down the line untlill they are themselves mutated. It's a very fluid system, much more than the labels 'species' 'micro/macroevolution' would have you think.

 

 

 

1)How do our cells know if a mutation is beneficial or not? According to what you just said beneficial mutations are rare, meaning that there are non-beneficial mutations. 2)Then you go on to say that the genes in the organism will never change and will always be passed down the line until they are themselves mutated.

 

 

 

3)According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

phooey.

 

 

 

1) Cells don't know weather a mutation is beneficial or not, it's only when the organism carrying that mutation reaches sexual maturation that it's mutation either aids in it's health and therfore mating ability, or diminishes it's health and therefore mating ability. If the mutation is so bad, which in some cases it is, the organism may not even reach sexual maturation.

 

 

 

2) Yes, that's right. It's all in genetics, mate. Genes from one organism don't just magically change during it's lifetime. They are set in stone and will (in case of sexually reproducing, diploid individuals [i.e. us + other animals]) combine, along with any mutations, with another parent set of genes to form a new organism. Mind you there are ways of randomising genes, but only during mieosis. If you don't know some of these terms, I highly reccomend you research.

 

 

 

3) Total and utter rubbish. Please, go read about it. Bad mutations die out due to the reduced health and mating opportunity of an organism and good mutations, which do occur, will proliferate. It's just common sense. Anything which causes harm to the system is thrown out. Anything which causes benefit is kept.

 

 

 

Non-beneficial mutations don't disprove macroevolution.

 

 

 

Basically, there are three possible qualities of mutation:

• [*:1u7e2lix]Damaging: the mutation has a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce and pass on its genes. These mutations quickly die out.
   
  [*:1u7e2lix]Useless: the mutation doesn't have a negative effect on the individual's ability to reproduce, but doesn't damage it either. The trait caused by the mutation isn't favoured, but it can still be passed on. A twist on useless mutations is the rudimentary organs; traits that were once useful but no longer are, yet still pass on to future generations because they haven't become damaging (yet). See: tailbone, appendix, etc..
   
  [*:1u7e2lix]Useful: the mutation has a positive effect on the individual's ability to reproduce. The trait gets passed on to future generations and becomes more common.

An example of a useless mutation that doesn't harm the individual's ability to reproduce is the sixth toe. Some people have it, yet it would give them no advantage if they were still living on the plains, hunting and gathering. At the same time, it wouldn't hurt to have either. All it really affects negatively is your ability to shop for shoes.

How do the cells realize that a mutation is beneficial or not? They don't. No matter how favored or not a trait is does not make cells self aware. Unless you are assuming that cells choose the better mutations over the bad mutations.

 

 

 

You are foolish. I'm not saying that to flame you I'm saying that to point out your blunder in trying to say that 1)cells know the difference between a useful mutation and a bad mutation.

 

 

 

1) That's not what he was sayng. As I said above, cells are oblivious to the whole process. They are drones and will just do whatever the DNA codes them to do. It's only us humans which have the mental capacity to label a mutation as good or bad. They're just labels. Don't let them confuse you. All the information you need is in genetics.

[Guest XplsvBam]

I understand that Warrior. What I don't understand is how mutations lead to macroevolution. From my understand of mutation we don't have any examples were something evolved into a different species.

[warri0r45]

I understand that Warrior. What I don't understand is how mutations lead to macroevolution. From my understand of mutation we don't have any examples were something evolved into a different species.

 

 

 

That in no way proves it wrong nor are there any viable alternatives. The way I see it and from what I know, there is no barrier preventing a compounding effect of microevolutionary changes leading to a speciation event. Surely you could see this with the example I posted. There are no barriers as far as I can tell and DNA, to put it quite bluntly, dosen't care weather we like macroevolution or not. It's just going to keep on mutating and keep doing it's thing; proliferation. All organisms are are a vessel for DNA to spread it'self like a virus and it dosen't go by the label 'species.' All it uses is a simple 4 letter code. Genetics has made evolution so simple for me to comprehend, despite to incredible time, scale and change involved.

 

 

 

I'm still genuinely keen to hear of any barriers which prevent speciation.

 

 

 

And as for just saying that you understand, that is kind of annoying, seeing as you posted this:

 

 

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that.

[The Dark Lord]

Sorry, but what is microevolution again? :oops:

[warri0r45]

Sorry, but what is microevolution again? :oops:

 

 

 

Microevolution is a allelic change (mutation of a gene which makes the protien it codes for function differently) wthin a species while macroevolution is essentially the same affect (as far as I'm aware) yet compounded to form a new species.

[Death_By_Pod]

The problem with macroevolution is that it is untestable. We can't just sit back for millions of years to test this theory and at the moment there is no other way for us to test it.

 

 

 

My argument against macroevolution is that it can't be proven. I'm not trying to disprove macroevolution I'm just pointing out the Fallacies and misconceptions of macroevolution.

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc ... troviruses

 

 

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

[Guest XplsvBam]

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that.

You said that beneficial mutations are rare, that would make non-beneficially mutations not rare. Simple logic.

 

 

 

For the second part, you said that when a cell mutates the entire organism mutates. Then you went on to say that it passes down the mutated DNA.

 

 

 

I came to the conclusion that what you said goes for beneficial mutations also goes for non-beneficial mutations.

 

 

 

If you disagree then you would have to come up with another reason why the majority (which is non-beneficial mutations) don't get absorbed into the community and wipe out (according to macroevolution) all organisms. This other reason could be that 1) cells realize when they have stumbled upon a beneficial mutation 2) you are full of complete phooey.

 

 

 

No hard feelings but the double standard game does work when it comes to biology. Its either all or nothing.

[Rebdragon]

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that.

You said that beneficial mutations are rare, that would make non-beneficially mutations not rare. Simple logic.

 

Non-beneficial generally meaning neutral and having [little to] no effect. "Non-benefical" doesn't necessarily mean that it's going to kill the organism instantaneously :-w .

 

 

 

For the second part, you said that when a cell mutates the entire organism mutates. Then you went on to say that it passes down the mutated DNA.

 

 

 

I came to the conclusion that what you said goes for beneficial mutations also goes for non-beneficial mutations.

 

 

 

If you disagree then you would have to come up with another reason why the majority (which is non-beneficial mutations) don't get absorbed into the community and wipe out (according to macroevolution) all organisms. This other reason could be that 1) cells realize when they have stumbled upon a beneficial mutation 2) you are full of complete phooey

 

 

 

It wouldn't spread throughout the community [of later generations] because the fact that it's harmful would diminish reproduction among those few who get the mutated gene (it being the semi-rare harmful mutations). It could get into the community, but it is less likely to do so then a beneficial mutation.

 

 

 

Mutated genes aren't an airborn virus :lol: , so I don't get where you go from "get harmful mutation" to "ALL THE MONKEYS DIED!"

 

 

 

Again, non-benefical doesn't necessarily mean harmful. In fact, the majority of mutations are pretty much neutral (according to what I've learned).

 

 

 

And please, take a bio course or read a book on it :-$ .

[warri0r45]

 

According to what you just said the majority of mutations would be non-beneficial and these mutations would pass down until the entire organism is non-beneficially mutated. This leaves the result that macroevolution, if it did happen, would not be beneficial to any species.

 

 

 

Which was in no way true and in no way reflects what I said. If you understood evolution so well, you wouldn't have posted that.

1)You said that beneficial mutations are rare, that would make non-beneficially mutations not rare. Simple logic.

 

 

 

2)For the second part, you said that when a cell mutates the entire organism mutates. Then you went on to say that it passes down the mutated DNA.

 

 

 

3) I came to the conclusion that what you said goes for beneficial mutations also goes for non-beneficial mutations.

 

 

 

If you disagree then you would have to come up with another 4)reason why the majority (which is non-beneficial mutations) don't get absorbed into the community and wipe out (according to macroevolution) all organisms. This other reason could be that 1) cells realize when they have stumbled upon a beneficial mutation 2) you are full of complete phooey.

 

 

 

5)No hard feelings but the double standard game does work when it comes to biology. Its either all or nothing.

 

 

 

You know this really is starting to annoy me. Let me try and pick apart what you're saying. Again. I'm really genuinly having trouble trying to decipher what it is you're on about but here goes.

 

 

 

 

 

1) What's your point?

 

 

 

2) I said that when a sex cell mutates. Sperm and egg make organism, agreed? When there is a DNA mutation during the process of mieosis (I highly suggest you google the term if you don't already know it) then that mutation will inevitably be transferred to the offspring organism, and will show through if dominant.

 

 

 

3) At the absolute core of evolutionary theory is the undeniable fact that non-beneficial mutations (I'm referring to harmful ones when I say this, Reb makes a valid point in the above post) will always diminish the organisms ability to procreate, by the very definition of the term non-beneficial. I'm really strugling why you would ever suggest that non-beneficial mutations would proliferate at the same rate as beneficial ones.

 

 

 

4) For the reason why, I suggest you read 3) and what natural selection means. It's really simple. Trust me.

 

 

 

5) I honestly don't have a clue what you're talking about.

[Ambassadar]

*oops meant to post on another thread, deleted my post

 

 

 

While I'm here though on the post I made last night what would you consider when life was first made? Wouldn't that be the ultimate achievement of macro-evolution? If it isn't the first step in evolution what is it?

 

 

 

Also

 

I said that when a sex cell mutates. Sperm and egg make organism, agreed? When there is a DNA mutation during the process of mieosis (I highly suggest you google the term if you don't already know it) then that mutation will inevitably be transferred to the offspring organism, and will show through if dominant.

 

What about mules? Why can't they mate? They are obviously a stronger animal than a donkey or a horse in areas or else people wouldn't have mated them to create mules for so many years. It's also pretty tough to get much closer than a donkey and a horse while staying as two different species. Shouldn't they evolve so mules can reproduce eventually? Then again mules have been around for probably thousands of years so if they were going to be able to mate one day you would think it would happen by now...

[warri0r45]

*oops meant to post on another thread, deleted my post

 

 

 

While I'm here though on the post I made last night what would you consider when life was first made? Wouldn't that be the ultimate achievement of macro-evolution? If it isn't the first step in evolution what is it?

 

 

 

Also

 

I said that when a sex cell mutates. Sperm and egg make organism, agreed? When there is a DNA mutation during the process of mieosis (I highly suggest you google the term if you don't already know it) then that mutation will inevitably be transferred to the offspring organism, and will show through if dominant.

 

What about mules? Why can't they mate? They are obviously a stronger animal than a donkey or a horse in areas or else people wouldn't have mated them to create mules for so many years. It's also pretty tough to get much closer than a donkey and a horse while staying as two different species. Shouldn't they evolve so mules can reproduce eventually? Then again mules have been around for probably thousands of years so if they were going to be able to mate one day you would think it would happen by now...

 

 

 

Firstly, you'd be right in assuming we don't have all the answers regarding abiogenesis. It's a litle tricky, I think you'd agree, but still possible. It's essentially got nothing to do with darwinian evolution, which focused on life from life, not life from non life. I believe the phrase is 'decent with modification' implying existing life. Think of it this way, does a metalurgist ask how the ore was formed? No, he just does his bit in the line by turning it into metal. Likewise, generally, evolutionists aren't all that concerned with abiogenesis.

 

 

 

As for your mule example, therein lies the problem with artificial selection. We selected to breed an organism which is infertile and therefore would not come about through natural selection. They are similar, but in very different theaters with different goals.

[Ambassadar]

I'll go with your answer on the first life since you were trying to focus on just the life to life evolving when you specified your post.

 

 

 

As to the mule it does raise many concerns on the viability of macro evolution in my opinion.

 

 

 

According to macro evolution at some point as lifeforms were advancing a new creature was born that had more chromosomes than any other creature alive. It would be that shining moment when the freak productive mutation had taken place and a new species had blossomed. Since it would have been the most advanced life on Earth how would it have mated when creatures as similar as a horse and donkey that do contain the same number of chromosomes couldn't mate?

 

 

 

Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate.

 

1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class)

 

2. Since that is the case the only other option would be they found a partner to mate with. If the animal was the first to make the leap to more chromosomes then a partner with the same number of chromosomes would have to be found to mate with because mating otherwise would be impossible. That means at the same time two freak mutations in opposite sexes would have to occur in the same species where they both jumped to having more chromosomes.

 

 

 

The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place. Then add on to that that these two animals would have to find each other before one of them died. That is like saying of all the billions of rats around the world if two mutated those two rats would have to find their partner in their lifetime or that new mutation would be lost forever.

 

 

 

The odds of two rats that may be on opposite sides of the planet finding each other are next to nothing. Add on the odds of the mutation happening in two animals at the same time. Those odds are waaaay smaller than the animals finding each other. Then add on that they have to be male and female... then add on that they have to be born within a very small timeframe of each other... Then add on that this would have to occur for every single time a species was made that couldn't reproduce with any other species... To me this scenario appears to be impossible. I just see no way that this is a realistic representation of how the animals on this Earth got here. I am looking forward to your response because this could be an interesting discussion.

[BlueTear]

 

 

 

As to the mule it does raise many concerns on the viability of macro evolution in my opinion.

 

 

 

According to macro evolution at some point as lifeforms were advancing a new creature was born that had more chromosomes than any other creature alive. It would be that shining moment when the freak productive mutation had taken place and a new species had blossomed. Since it would have been the most advanced life on Earth how would it have mated when creatures as similar as a horse and donkey that do contain the same number of chromosomes couldn't mate?

 

 

 

... 'cept horses have 64 chromosones and donkeys have 62?

 

 

 

Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate.

 

1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class)

 

Of course, there are mules who are fertile. Because they have 63 chromosones it's always female mules - just as is the case with ligers. Male mules are always sterile because like humans, sex is decided with an XX and XY setup. The problem is getting them to mate and then to luck out like there's no tomorrow in the combination of gene's to create a viable featus. But you know what they say; The probability of whatever happenening taken over the entire existance over the multiverse in the entire span of the multiverse is 1. Or, if you don't want to go quite that probability physics, there's always the whole "a million years" thing going.

 

The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place.

 

Because no one has ever been born with an extra chromosone?

[dutchdreams]

Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate.

 

1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class)

 

2. Since that is the case the only other option would be they found a partner to mate with. If the animal was the first to make the leap to more chromosomes then a partner with the same number of chromosomes would have to be found to mate with because mating otherwise would be impossible. That means at the same time two freak mutations in opposite sexes would have to occur in the same species where they both jumped to having more chromosomes.

 

 

 

Kindly explain the occurance of Down syndrome in human population out of parents with 'normal' chromosome numbers. Be sure to include both your claims, specifically on the matter of the fertility of Down syndrome females. I'll give you a clue: these females can produce offspring.

[warri0r45]

I'll go with your answer on the first life since you were trying to focus on just the life to life evolving when you specified your post.

 

 

 

As to the mule it does raise many concerns on the viability of macro evolution in my opinion.

 

 

 

According to macro evolution at some point as lifeforms were advancing a new creature was born that had more chromosomes than any other creature alive. It would be that shining moment when the freak productive mutation had taken place and a new species had blossomed. Since it would have been the most advanced life on Earth how would it have mated when creatures as similar as a horse and donkey that do contain the same number of chromosomes couldn't mate?

 

 

 

Several things would have to occur for the species to propagate.

 

1. It would have to be asexual. (This would rule out mammals and most other classes of animals from ever evolving past the lowest levels existing in that class)

 

2. Since that is the case the only other option would be they found a partner to mate with. If the animal was the first to make the leap to more chromosomes then a partner with the same number of chromosomes would have to be found to mate with because mating otherwise would be impossible. That means at the same time two freak mutations in opposite sexes would have to occur in the same species where they both jumped to having more chromosomes.

 

 

 

The odds of that are insane since we don't even know if an animal can mutate to a higher chromosome level in the first place. Then add on to that that these two animals would have to find each other before one of them died. That is like saying of all the billions of rats around the world if two mutated those two rats would have to find their partner in their lifetime or that new mutation would be lost forever.

 

 

 

The odds of two rats that may be on opposite sides of the planet finding each other are next to nothing. Add on the odds of the mutation happening in two animals at the same time. Those odds are waaaay smaller than the animals finding each other. Then add on that they have to be male and female... then add on that they have to be born within a very small timeframe of each other... Then add on that this would have to occur for every single time a species was made that couldn't reproduce with any other species... To me this scenario appears to be impossible. I just see no way that this is a realistic representation of how the animals on this Earth got here. I am looking forward to your response because this could be an interesting discussion.

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to know how to answer your question. I'll admit my knowlege on genetics, specifically of chromosomal arrangements, why genes arrage into chromosomes (more specifically how many chromosomes they arrange into), chromosome evolution and how genes are added or lost during mutations, isn't perfect. I'm thinking I'll be learning some of those things next semester but my gut feeling is that if it were as statistically improbable as you suggest, it wouldn't be such a well supported theory.

 

 

 

Think about it this way; a species wouldn't be formed by a random chance of two organisms of the same species with the same mutation meeting up and doing the deed. It would logically occur when populations of organisms split and thier particular allelic quirks (traits) combined with environmental pressures, i.e. natural selection lead to variance from the original population. The chromosome issue is interesting. I'll eventually find the answers through my education but I might dig around to see what I can find on the net.

[Ambassadar]

... 'cept horses have 64 chromosones and donkeys have 62?

 

 

Good point and thanks for saying that. I remember thinking I needed to double check that as I typed it and then I forgot to so good call on picking that up. I made a mistake.

 

 

 

Male mules are always sterile because like humans, sex is decided with an XX and XY setup.

 

So until that little detail is overcome mules support the idea that macro evolution doesn't happen.

 

 

 

there's always the whole "a million years" thing going.

 

Actually scientists have developed a pretty detailed time line of the order they say animals evolved so you had the problems I described in my above post happening on a broad scale with many animals at once in a restrained time frame. There is just no way...

 

 

 

Kindly explain the occurance of Down syndrome in human population out of parents with 'normal' chromosome numbers. Be sure to include both your claims, specifically on the matter of the fertility of Down syndrome females. I'll give you a clue: these females can produce offspring.

 

Alrighty. In Down syndrome there is extra genetic in the 21 chromosome. It usually results in mild to moderate [developmentally delayed]ation and is a factor in many negative diseases or afflictions to the person that has it. Additionally like mules males are sterile. Females have about a 50% chance of their child having Down syndrome.

 

 

 

Although persons with Down syndrome seldom reproduce, it is necessary to provide them with a healthy understanding and orientation toward sexuality. Pregnancy has been rare, probably as a result of sexual isolation in institutions, but sometimes does occur. About half the infants born of such pregnancies have Down syndrome. Males with trisomy 21 not associated with mosaicism or translation have not been known to reproduce

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Down_syndrome

 

 

 

Down sydrome... macro evolution in action?

 

 

 

I'm not going to pretend to know how to answer your question.

 

If you don't know then why did you try to answer it? All that makes your answer is conjecture.

[Death_By_Pod]

 

So until that little detail is overcome mules support the idea that macro evolution doesn't happen.

 

 

 

 

It is not individuals that evolve but populations. A population evolves by gradual changes in gene frequency until it becomes a distinct species that is no longer capable of interbreeding with similar populations that shared a common ancestor. All of the individuals within the population can mate successfully with each other so there is no problem with "hybrids". There are quite a few examples of different populations of the same species which have trouble interbreeding, in other words the hybrids are not viable. These populations are evolving and may become separate species. It is a common mistake to assume that a new species begins when an individual "mutates" or "evolves" in a single step - this is simply not how evolution works.

 

 

 

Mules can't interbreed because they have an odd number of chromosomes, not because because it is a hybrid. Galapagos Finches are an example of a species which regularly produce fertile hybrids.

 

 

 

Also if you disagree with macroevolution, you have to explain all this away first. But like most people you'll just ignore anything you don't want to understand.

 

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/

 

 

 

 

If you don't know then why did you try to answer it? All that makes your answer is conjecture.

 

 

 

That's the problem, people defending macroevolution are just as ignorant as the people who don't understand it. If you want to answer a question at least take the time to research a correct answer. It's not hard with so many online resources these days.