@spacklick, i'm skeptical of your claim that "no amount of turkey basters, however, is going to produce a human-chimp hybrid."
from my admittedly limited understanding of biology, there have been no studies conducted to date which would confirm your statement. so i'm curious as to how you arrived at such a conclusion, especially when considering the genetic similarity between humans and chimps is close than the similarity between horses and mules, and they can reproduce.
@ I am also skeptical of this claim, but the point I was making would still stand If I had named any other species on the planet whether Bos Primigenius, Balaenoptera physalus or Escherichia coli.
Also I should have said viable hybrid.
My point was that you cannot overcome the species barrier with technology in most cases but you can overcome the subspecies barrier with technology.
@SPACKlick i think i'm still confused on the difference between something being a subspecies and something being a different species. however, this could just be due to the fact that i couldn't quite keep with what you were saying near the end. otherwise i'd assume we're in agreement on mostly everything you said:-P thanks for answering my question.
Your definition of 'macroevolution' is not very rigorous. Strictly, macroevolution is change in frequencies of alleles at or above species level, of which speciation is merely a subset. Another example of macroevolution is extinction, because this represents a change in allele frequencies at species level.
Worm reproduction involves a form of "semen", which is a modified form of mucus. They align genital pores (the band close to the mouth end of the worms) and the male secretes copius quantities of sperm laden mucus. All of this is predated by a worm like species that lacked this and could only reproduce in very wet bogs and swamp lands. From a simple evoluutionary change the "Worm" was free to colonize the land and not just river and swamp margins.
There si no difference to downplay. In fact, I would chastise any evolutionary scientists for even mentioning ''Micro'' and ''macro'' evolution. The words are utterly meaningless when you understand that evolution is descent with inherant genetic modification.
You're a "Darwinian"? WTF is that? Darwin was wrong about some things and didn't give a lot of detail about the things his original theory did explain. Are you also a Newtonian?
@SPACKlick Again, I would chastise any scientists, philosopher or religious person for using political terms like ''Darwinian''. It's not correct in a historical sense, since at the moment we are at the point where we have rearranged and overturned the ''modern synthesis of evolution'' and really we should be giving the theory a new name. Some people have used ''the post modern synthesis'', which I like a lot. Needless to say, we are now at a late stage, far beyond darwinism.
Agreed and if I was ever discussing with people who understood the theory and the differences between Darwinian evoltuion, Neo-Darwinian evolution, Modern synthesis and [what I call] Neo-Modern Synthesis, I would use the terms appropriatley. I use the common term to talk to people who will understand it.
Technically, macroevolution is different from microevolution, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Creationists often make macroevolution look like a rigid framework that can't change much if at all. But in reality its more like a painting. Talking a brush and drawing an x across it would destroy it, as would say, making a random red streak where the eye should be.
But most of the painting can be mutated without such harmful effects. Eventually you get to a point where the majority of mutations just make things worse, so evolution slows down. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the first place or that it can't happen again, but this is the assumption many creationists make.
@spacklick, i'm skeptical of your claim that "no amount of turkey basters, however, is going to produce a human-chimp hybrid."
from my admittedly limited understanding of biology, there have been no studies conducted to date which would confirm your statement. so i'm curious as to how you arrived at such a conclusion, especially when considering the genetic similarity between humans and chimps is close than the similarity between horses and mules, and they can reproduce.
cristoballs 1 year ago
@ I am also skeptical of this claim, but the point I was making would still stand If I had named any other species on the planet whether Bos Primigenius, Balaenoptera physalus or Escherichia coli.
Also I should have said viable hybrid.
My point was that you cannot overcome the species barrier with technology in most cases but you can overcome the subspecies barrier with technology.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick i think i'm still confused on the difference between something being a subspecies and something being a different species. however, this could just be due to the fact that i couldn't quite keep with what you were saying near the end. otherwise i'd assume we're in agreement on mostly everything you said:-P thanks for answering my question.
cristoballs 1 year ago
Your definition of 'macroevolution' is not very rigorous. Strictly, macroevolution is change in frequencies of alleles at or above species level, of which speciation is merely a subset. Another example of macroevolution is extinction, because this represents a change in allele frequencies at species level.
hackenbollox 1 year ago
@hackenbollox I agree, I oversimplified massively here
SPACKlick 1 year ago
Worm reproduction involves a form of "semen", which is a modified form of mucus. They align genital pores (the band close to the mouth end of the worms) and the male secretes copius quantities of sperm laden mucus. All of this is predated by a worm like species that lacked this and could only reproduce in very wet bogs and swamp lands. From a simple evoluutionary change the "Worm" was free to colonize the land and not just river and swamp margins.
RyuDarragh 1 year ago
There si no difference to downplay. In fact, I would chastise any evolutionary scientists for even mentioning ''Micro'' and ''macro'' evolution. The words are utterly meaningless when you understand that evolution is descent with inherant genetic modification.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
You're a "Darwinian"? WTF is that? Darwin was wrong about some things and didn't give a lot of detail about the things his original theory did explain. Are you also a Newtonian?
hugesinker 1 year ago
@hugesinker It is a term, commonly used, to mean someone who believes in the theory of common descent through modification and natural selection
SPACKlick 1 year ago
@SPACKlick Again, I would chastise any scientists, philosopher or religious person for using political terms like ''Darwinian''. It's not correct in a historical sense, since at the moment we are at the point where we have rearranged and overturned the ''modern synthesis of evolution'' and really we should be giving the theory a new name. Some people have used ''the post modern synthesis'', which I like a lot. Needless to say, we are now at a late stage, far beyond darwinism.
TheProf1988 1 year ago
@TheProf1988
Agreed and if I was ever discussing with people who understood the theory and the differences between Darwinian evoltuion, Neo-Darwinian evolution, Modern synthesis and [what I call] Neo-Modern Synthesis, I would use the terms appropriatley. I use the common term to talk to people who will understand it.
SPACKlick 1 year ago
Technically, macroevolution is different from microevolution, but it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Creationists often make macroevolution look like a rigid framework that can't change much if at all. But in reality its more like a painting. Talking a brush and drawing an x across it would destroy it, as would say, making a random red streak where the eye should be.
Houshalter 1 year ago
But most of the painting can be mutated without such harmful effects. Eventually you get to a point where the majority of mutations just make things worse, so evolution slows down. This doesn't mean that it didn't happen in the first place or that it can't happen again, but this is the assumption many creationists make.
Houshalter 1 year ago
1st
JKTProductionzIncNCo 2 years ago