Okay, okay, okay. I've held off this long, but I can't hold off anymore.

1)It's twain, not twane.

2)Twain means that something that was previously together is now divided. Like . . . reptiles and birds. So they weren't twain until they split. And now the twain shall not meet.

I don't mind colloquialisms when they're properly used, but I couldn't stand this blatant misuse anymore.

Let's try one more time to understand definitions.

We have no problem agreeing what microevolution is and that it occurs.

Macro-Evolution is a molecules to man natural transformation in which new, higher genetic info is gained which was not possessed by one's ancestors. The idea of change to something vastly different (as reptiles supposedly to birds) is the understanding now commonly held. It is indeed what you have been saying here.



This example is NOT ONE OF MACROEVOLUTION at least not according to the definition I provided above. The watermelon is still a watermelon.

Variety within kind is not macroevolution. Again, becasue new, higher genetic info is not gained in the process giving rise to change from one species to a completely new different one.

Natural selection is not macroevolution for the same reason....new, higher genetic info is not gained, but instead tends to be lost, at best. Natural Selection only conserves existing genetic info in life forms.

Much thanks SanChonino, I stand corrected. I'm glad to see that at least you understood the meaning of the misspelling.   

Growth to maturity is not macroevolution.....

The normal pattern of growth from conception to adulthood involves an unfolding and change of shape and size, look and texture, but again new, higher genetic information is not gained in the process.

Use it in a sentence!

"He split Robin's arrow in twain!"

The point is that once two different types of watermelon can no longer interbreed, genetic drift, random mutatiions, etc. will take them in two different directions. For example, sickle cell anemia is very common among the African American population. This is because having one functional copy of the sicklecell gene and one mutant copy makes an individual resistant to malaria, a big killer on the African continent. According to Al Gore's An Inconvienent Truth, several African countries were founded right above the "mosquito line" just because mosquitos transmit diseases like malaria. So it makes sense that such a painful and horrid mutation would become more prevalent there, right? I mean, the heterozygotes have a huge advantage.

Well, that's true. But that begs the question, "Why is sickle cell anemia not common among Latin American populations, where malaria is also a big problem?" The answer is that sicklecell mutated in Africa. It simply did not mutate in Latin America. The environment does not produce mutations (unless you consider mutagens). Mutations happen randomly, and very rarely, they are beneficial. This is an example of two imperfectly inbreeding populations differentiating, the Africans and the Latin Americans. If it were literally impossible for two populations to mate, the situation intensifies.

The only qualifier for a new species is that it is a viable offspring that can reproduce with itself but not its parent.

PS. In case you were thinking, "Yeah, but sickle cell is a degenerate mutation." There are mechanisms, like translocation, through which two different alleles can transfer and be expressed from the same chromosome. Any individual who inherits the two traits linked might receive resistance to malaria and still produce enough normal cells to avoid anemia.

~ Docta' Cscoles

 

Absolutely, 100% true....for starters, we have completely different DNA.

 

 

Very good Jythier, cookie for the right answer.

(Or is it a smack up the head? I can't remember. )

Apparently you have not heard of analogies.


Anywho, I'm through arguing. It's absolutely pointless. I can't chisel through your hardheaded belief no matter what I say.

Enjoy your creationism, wrong as it may be.

~Zoo

We have similar DNA, even to a creature as simple as Caenorhabditis elegans (roundworm). Many of the genes we discovered in organsims like the fruit fly (Sonic hedghog, NOTCH1, Antennaepedia, etc.) have human orthologs.

Indeed they do. But for some reason a few people seem to think we have magic super DNA.

All DNA is the same, it's only a matter of how the sequences are arranged.

~Zoo

Of mice and Men. Everything the field of genetics has tought us fully supports a common ancestory. Why do you think we can use mice to test drugs for humans? You even have the gene for a tail. Genetically all life is related.

Link

Intelligent Design doesnt have a theory yet. I mean, even the founder and purported intellectual leader of the movement, Philip Johnson, says as much.

"I also don’t think that there is really a theory of intelligent design at the present time to propose as a comparable alternative to the Darwinian theory, which is, whatever errors it might contain, a fully worked out scheme. There is no intelligent design theory that’s comparable. Working out a positive theory is the job of the scientific people that we have affiliated with the movement.Some of them are quite convinced that it’s doable, but that’s for them to prove…No product is ready for competition in the educational world."

Interview here: http://sciencereview.berkeley.edu/articles/issue10/evolution.pdf

So they can pursue it (they get several million dollars a year in donations at the Discovery Institute alone) but they don't have a theory to date. Some excited christians think they are further along than they actually are and that leads to issues like Dover, where the ID movement was damaged by a school board trying to push too fast.

"Similiar to" and "the same as" animals are two different things...as far apart as east is from west. It's becasue they are different that macroevolution cannot occur.

What precisely is that common ancestry if not Adam and Eve in the case of humankind?

I know we are all part of nature and share the planet earth...