Threaded Mode | Linear Mode

**popeyespappy**

(22nd October 2012 04:16)Creed of Heresy Wrote:
(21st October 2012 19:08)Polaris Wrote: Well there are two types of evolution: macroevolution, which is much easier to accept, and microevolution.

The key with macroevolution is taking the evidence and extrapolating a pattern.

Microevolution is more about taking the theory of evolution and trying to assert it is happening currently in a certain species over a very limited amount of data from genetic divergence within a control group over time period significantly less than what should be used to determine if evolution is occurring.

I know right. It's his story and he can't even get micro versus macro right.

Polaris

(21st October 2012 19:14)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.

Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

Darkstar

(22nd October 2012 04:51)Polaris Wrote:
(21st October 2012 19:14)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.

Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

Depends on how you define evolution. Evolution isn't a straight line to an inherently superior species; it is an adaptation to the organism's environment. There are other definitions for the word 'evolution' other than the Darwinian variety, but they do not necessarily mean the same thing as Darwinian evolution.

Rhythm

(22nd October 2012 04:51)Polaris Wrote: Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

"Darwinianian mechanisms"..lol. You wouldn't call genetic change evolution? Strange......because that is the entirety of evolution.... What's the deal, you just don't like the word evolution or something?

Polaris

(22nd October 2012 05:14)Rhythm Wrote:
(22nd October 2012 04:51)Polaris Wrote: Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.
"Darwinianian mechanisms"..lol. You wouldn't call genetic change evolution? Strange......because that is the entirety of evolution.... What's the deal, you just don't like the word evolution or something?

No I would not label such as evolution until it is propagated through subsequent generations to a signifiant level.

Rhythm

Which it does, and demonstrably so, next?

Polaris

(22nd October 2012 05:24)Rhythm Wrote: Which it does, and demonstrably so, next?

Typically it just dies out or is underrepresented in the next generation when it is no longer environmentally advantageous.

Rhythm

What, genetic change? No, afraid not, next?

Darkstar

(22nd October 2012 05:26)Polaris Wrote:
(22nd October 2012 05:24)Rhythm Wrote: Which it does, and demonstrably so, next?

Typically it just dies out or is underrepresented in the next generation when it is no longer environmentally advantageous.

If it is no longer environmentally advantageos, then yes. If it is, then the genes will have be more likely to be passed down to the next generation and the next generation will have that gene as slightly more prevelant, building over time until it is the norm. I would be surprised if environmental factors changed so quickly that evolution could never keep up with it. Note I say never, as many species have gone extinct, so there must be a good number of instances in which evolution was too slow, but I think that would be more in that it was too slow to evolve in certain features, not that said features were no longer useful, but that they weren't useful enough to allow survival nonetheless.

Yes, I'm "fun" like that... Wink

Please don't eat me, I'm just expressing myself.

Creed of Heresy

(22nd October 2012 04:51)Polaris Wrote:
(21st October 2012 19:14)Rhythm Wrote: LOL, macro and micro refer to our perspective of the event, not the process. Don't start this tired shit. Microevolution -is- macroevolution. Titl the lens into closer focus, pan out over wider focus. End of.

Going back and forth between genetic changes is not what I call evolution. Just because a species is undergoing Darwinian mechanisms does not mean it is really experiencing evolution.

(22nd October 2012 05:23)Polaris Wrote:
(22nd October 2012 05:14)Rhythm Wrote: "Darwinianian mechanisms"..lol. You wouldn't call genetic change evolution? Strange......because that is the entirety of evolution.... What's the deal, you just don't like the word evolution or something?

No I would not label such as evolution until it is propagated through subsequent generations to a signifiant level.

(22nd October 2012 05:26)Polaris Wrote:
(22nd October 2012 05:24)Rhythm Wrote: Which it does, and demonstrably so, next?

Typically it just dies out or is underrepresented in the next generation when it is no longer environmentally advantageous.

!!!

MY HEADs ARE STARTING TO HURT. ALL THREE THEM.

Here, I'll sum up Polaris's position with a quote from the bible [authenticity cannot be verified at this time]:

"If Dar-WINS, we all lose!" -Platitudes 5:12