:>
fckmad::nono5::youmad::Countdown:carto1710
ucking:
you're 100% correct, look at the overwhelming mountain of evidence, and the answer is simple. 9/11 was a terrorist attack
Abortion should be Legal for all. Not in my opinion, cause you should not kill the babies you needs to give them milk and love so they can live and be happy.
Evolution is real and factual. Not in my opinion. It all started in my opinion from the Virgin Mary womb with some help from the Holy Ghost. The rest is crap.
Religion is based on fairy tales. Not the Catholic one.
Global Warming is an Imminent Threat. Not. Just a bunch of crap to help Al Gore's comeback.
Gay Marriage should be supported by all. Yes, cause it will help make the gay people happy and this be good.
This is what I think about these here issues.
:toast:
Evolution is real and factual. Not in my opinion. It all started in my opinion from the Virgin Mary womb with some help from the Holy Ghost. The rest is crap.
Religion is based on fairy tales. Not the Catholic one.
Global Warming is an Imminent Threat. Not. Just a bunch of crap to help Al Gore's comeback.
Gay Marriage should be supported by all. Yes, cause it will help make the gay people happy and this be good.
This is what I think about these here issues.
:toast:
Abortion should be Legal for all
Given that no American female in at least the past 30 years has been prosecuted criminally for terminating a pregnancy, it pretty much is within the USA
Evolution is real and factual
Of course it's real. The related facts have been and will continue to be accumulated, studied and verified for as long as we have scientists and archaeologists.
Religion is based on fairy tales
A lot of religious beliefs are indeed founded on mythical stories.
Global Warming is an Imminent Threat
If by imminent, you mean within the next couple thousand years, then Yes.
Gay Marriage should be supported by all
The only Americans who really need to spend much time thinking about gay marriage are gay Americans. But I guess some people don't have enough other stuff to keep their brains busy.
Discuss
Done, Done, Done
Given that no American female in at least the past 30 years has been prosecuted criminally for terminating a pregnancy, it pretty much is within the USA
Evolution is real and factual
Of course it's real. The related facts have been and will continue to be accumulated, studied and verified for as long as we have scientists and archaeologists.
Religion is based on fairy tales
A lot of religious beliefs are indeed founded on mythical stories.
Global Warming is an Imminent Threat
If by imminent, you mean within the next couple thousand years, then Yes.
Gay Marriage should be supported by all
The only Americans who really need to spend much time thinking about gay marriage are gay Americans. But I guess some people don't have enough other stuff to keep their brains busy.
Discuss
Done, Done, Done
<!-- Content Title Here --> What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?
<hr> <!-- Start Content Here -->
<script type="text/javascript">addthis_pub = 'gotquest';</script>
<script type="text/javascript" src="http://s7.addthis.com/js/152/addthis_widget.js"></script>Question: "What is the difference between Microevolution and Macroevolution?"
Answer: Microevolution is an uncontroversial, well-documented, naturally-occurring, biological phenomenon. It happens every day. It is the process whereby preexisting genetic information is rearranged, corrupted, and/or lost through sexual reproduction and/or genetic mutation producing relatively small-scale (“micro”) changes within a population. Two long-haired dogs producing a short-haired puppy would be an example of microevolution (we’ll look at why in a moment).
Macroevolution is the somewhat more controversial theoretical extrapolation of microevolution that requires the introduction of new genetic information. It is believed to produce large-scale (“macro”) changes. An amphibian evolving into a reptile or a reptile evolving into a bird would be examples of macroevolution.
Macroevolution is an important concept because Darwinists believe that it is the mechanism for their idea that all life evolved from a common primordial ancestor. Since microevolution is small-scale (“micro”) biological changes, and macroevolution is large-scale (“macro”) biological change, many Darwinists argue that macroevolution is simply the accumulation of microevolutionary changes over time. Ostensibly, this is a reasonable extrapolation of microevolution. Darwinists therefore often cite evidence for microevolution as evidence for macroevolution. However, because macroevolution requires new additional genetic information, no amount of rearrangement, corruption or loss of existing genetic information will produce macroevolution. In other words, no amount of microevolution will produce macroevolution. Darwinists draw a false correlation between the two. We will now take a closer look at both microevolution and macroevolution.
Microevolution
We will begin with microevolution. Let’s say for example that within the dog genome there is both a gene for long hair (H) and a gene for short hair (h). Now imagine that the very first dogs possessed both genes (Hh). If two Hh dogs bred, half of the Hh from one dog would combine with half of the Hh from the other dog through sexual reproduction and there would be four possible outcomes for offspring: HH, Hh, hH and hh puppies.
Now let’s suppose that the longhair H gene is the dominant gene and the shorthair h gene is the recessive gene. That means that when a dog possesses both genes, only the longhair H gene will be expressed, i.e., the dog will have long hair. So if two longhair Hh dogs bred, the odds are that they would have three longhair puppies (HH, Hh and hH) and one shorthair puppy (hh). The two longhair dogs having a shorthair puppy would be an example of change within a population resulting from the rearrangement of preexisting genetic information (i.e. microevolution).
If a longhair Hh dog bred with a shorthair hh dog, the odds are that they would have two longhair puppies (Hh and hH) and two shorthair puppies (hh and hh). If two shorthair hh dogs bred, they would produce only shorthair hh puppies. And if this group of shorthair hh dogs became isolated from the longhair HH, Hh and hH dogs, they would lose access to the longhair H gene altogether and become an “isolated gene pool.” When it comes to dogs, isolated gene pools are called “purebreds.” Likewise, if a group of longhair HH dogs became isolated from the shorthair h gene, they would be considered purebred. On the other hand, the longhair Hh and hH dogs would be called “mutts.” Human breeders have been exploiting this biological phenomenon for thousands of years, selecting dog couples to mate based on their appearance in order to accentuate and attenuate traits gradually over time and thereby introduce new breeds.
Genetic Mutation
Now imagine that within a longhair Hh population a genetic mutation disabled the expression of the longhair H gene, and that mutation was reproduced over and over again within the population. The formerly longhair population would become shorthair, not because of the rearrangement of genes through sexual reproduction but because of genetic mutation.
Another important example of microevolution through genetic mutation is when a population of insects becomes resistant to a certain pesticide, or when bacteria become resistant to antibiotics. What happens in these instances is that through mutation the insects or bacteria lose the ability to produce the enzyme which interacts with the poison. The pesticide or antibiotic therefore has no effect. But the insects or bacteria don’t gain any new genetic information, they lose it. It is not therefore an example of macroevolution as it is often misinterpreted as, but microevolution. As biophysicist Dr. Lee Spetner explains, “All of the mutations that have been examined on a molecular level show that the organism has lost information and not gained it.” (“From a Frog to a Prince,” documentary by Keziah Films, 1998)
Macroevolution
Now let’s look at macroevolution. Darwinists believe that all life is genetically related and has descended from a common ancestor. The first birds and the first mammals are believed to have evolved from a reptile; the first reptile is believed to have evolved from the an amphibian; the first amphibian is believed to have evolved from a fish; the first fish is believed to have evolved from a lower form of life, and so on until we go all the way back to the first single-celled organism, which is believed to have evolved from inorganic matter. [The acronym to remember is FARM: Fish to Amphibian to Reptile to Mammal.]
The very first single-celled organism did not possess all of the genetic information for a human, so in order for humans to have ultimately evolved from a primitive single-celled organism, a lot of genetic information had to be added along the way. Change resulting from the introduction of new genetic information is “macroevolution.”
The reason why macroevolution is controversial and remains theoretical is that there is no known way for entirely new genetic information to be added to a genome. Darwinists have been hoping that genetic mutation would provide a mechanism, but so far that has not been the case. As Dr. Spetner again explains, “I really do not believe that the neo-Darwinian model can account for large scale evolution [i.e. macroevolution]. What they really can’t account for is the buildup of information. …And not only is it improbable on the mathematical level, that is theoretically, but experimentally one has not found a single mutation that one can point at that actually adds information. In fact, every beneficial mutation that I have seen reduces the information, it loses information.” (Ibid.)
Creation vs. Evolution
When Creationists say they don’t believe in evolution, they are not talking about microevolution. They are referring to macroevolution. Microevolution is a credibly observed scientific phenomena. What Creationists do not believe in is Darwin’s macroevolutionary extrapolation of microevolution. Unlike microevolution, there is no truly scientific evidence for macroevolution, and in fact, there is significant evidence against it. The distinction between microevolution and macroevolution is, therefore, an important one for those interested in the creation vs. evolution debate.
