Okay I've been debating weather I wanted to continue this or not. Forgive me for this being off track to the main topic but it's been kind of on my mind. So here is one last try. I'm writing this on Notepad so if any weird symbols pop up you'll know why.
No? I thought I clearly stated that adaptation was micro-evolution? Even though they both have "evolution" as suffixes, micro-evolution doesn't involve gaining new traits at all, so it's completely different from macro-evolution.
I wasn't talking about micro and macro as in organism size, I was talking about it as evolution, and I didn't feel like wasting time and typing "-evolution" at the end of every micro and macro.
I'm sorry I misunderstood you usually when I hear someone making this sort of argument they are meaning only microscopic organisms evolve while macroscopic ones do not, only because we have been able to clearly see this happen in microscopic organisms.
Micro-evolution is simply adaptation, not the creation of a new species. It's basically the theory that only the best survive and get the chance to have offspring. It doesn't really prove macro-evolution.
In a way you are correct, but I still think you have a bit of a misunderstanding of terms.
So I will try to clarify my statement of micro- and macroevolution being the same thing.
microevolution deals with the changes accruing in a species over a short period of time.
macroevolution deals with not just that single species but that species entire clade.
For example microevolution deals with the changed accruing in say a common lizard while macroevolution deals with the changed that accrued in lizards to get snakes, komodo dragons, frilled lizards, etc.
Ways to look at it.
mutation, genetic flow, genetic drift, natural selection + many generations over a long period of time= macroevolution
mutation, genetic flow, genetic drift, natural selection + a few generations over a short period of time= microevolution
Another way to look at it if you added up a bunch of steps attributed to microevolution you get macroevolution.
One more way to look at it would be like the gravity that pulls things to the ground and the gravity holding the solar system together is the same just on a different scales.
This is what I mean by it being the same thing the only different is in the scale. It's the same thing going on in both cases it's just small changes accruing in the species you just get enough of those small changes together you end up with something new.
One more thing speciation is a major jumping off point for macroevolution which as I mentioned we have observed.
So were my original examples, examples of observed evolution? Yes they were. Were they examples of microevolution? Yes they were, however that doesn't devalue them as evidence of evolution.
marioman327
Now for your sorry butt.
That is not evolution. Evolution happens very very slowly, over millions of years. Nylonase was discovered only 40-something years after nylon was invented.
First of all if you read my definition above you will see how wrong this statement is. Secondly evolution has more to do with the number of generations then it does with actual time. Third we have other observed instances of drastic changed to a species resulting in new genetic material in a much shorter number of generations then originally thought possible. These lizards I mention they only took 36 years to develop those new traits. So even if it only took the Nylonase 40 years to evolve doesn't mean it wasn't evolution.
You still cannot call that evolution. I learned recently how to play piano, but did I'm not gonna say the ability evolved or mutated into me.
Your trying to compare a learned trait (playing the piano) with a genetic trait (being able to eat material previously uneatable)
So are you just that completely ignorant or are you really (as I suspected before) that stupid?
You literally said something that has no reasoning backing it up.
No your the one that doesn't have reason backing it up.
