|
killerbandit (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
lower primates to higher primates is an example of macro evolution. Dinosaurs to birds is an example of macro evolution. Every single species on earth is an example of macro evolution.
Terrencje (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Cichlids in Lake Malawi and Lake Victoria have diversified into hundreds of species.Several other new species of plants have arisen via polyploidy. Silverside fish show incipient speciation between marine and estuarine populations. Many species of birds, including Parus major and P. minor, Halcyon chloris, Zosterops, Lalage, Pernis, the Larus argentatus group, and Phylloscopus trochiloides are ringspecies.Want more?
Terrencje (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
Oenothera gigas speciated from O. lamarckiana and can't interbreed anymore.Primula kewensis through cross-breeding P. verticillata and P. floribunda, a few had fertile offspring so a new species.A new species of mosquito, isolated in London's Underground, has speciated from Culex pipiens.The salamander Ensatina, with subspecies on the west coast of USA. They form a ring around California's central valley. At the south end, adjacent subspecies klauberi and eschscholtzi do not interbreed.
JustATrick (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
whats an example of macro evolution that has been observed?
Terrencje (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
The 6 types of evolution of Kent Hovind?Big bang theory has massive evidence. We observe planetary and star formation as well as the formation of higher elements. Abiogenesis is speculative but less speculative then a 'god' and macro evolution and microevolution have both been observed. Still got no reason to accept the theory of evolution?
k87jury (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
...There are not 6 kinds of evolution.The big bang theory and cosmology has nothing to do with evolution.Micro and macro are the same thing. It is the change in allele frequencies over time.
JustATrick (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
not science, 6 types of evolution, 1 has been observed, the rest are pure speculation, science issomething we can observe test and repeat, 4/5 of evolution is pure speculation, micro evolution we believe
Hooya2 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
We've examined the gene, and it has a fairly standard operator, but with a few key differences that means the operator doesn't work. What is the logical conclusion; that it's an operator that's been mutated to purposelessness, or that it's actually something entirely different that looks like an operator by coincidence?Scientists have been saying for years that our ancestors laid eggs. Isn't it a bit of a coincidence that we now find a gene so similar to the gene for making egg yolks?
a01011399 (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
no the gene is not the same, it is different, supposly do to a mutation, junk dna can activate, with jumping genes, nothing to do with random mutations
k87jury (December 31, 1969 at 6:59 pm)
It is the same except for the fact that it has been switched on, and mammalian systems are similar enough where they use proteins in the same way. Also for the gene to have a future use, you would have to admit as a creationist that not only are not all mutations bad, but some have a positive effect on the animal. |
