I'd say their influence on evolution is mostly neutral. A negative mutation wont hurt a natural population.....it wont succeed. However we do promote negative mutations and traits (not the same things but we exploit mutations to create 'traits) in our domestic animal & plant populations.
They do this by splitting evolution up into macro and micro evolution. No, I'm not saying it's smart, I'm just saying that's how they rationalize it.
This is a little wrong.
The horse shoe crab has gone through significant environmental changes or stresses, it's just that the genotypes producing the phenotypes have been successful enough not to warrant significant allele changes. The horseshoe crab today guaranteed is not the same genetically as the one a million years ago.
Evolution is partially based on genetic mutation, but it's not entirely based on it.
Except that 6000 years isn't long enough for microevolution to result in speciation. QED.
Have you ever seen a cat turn into a whale? Exactly.
No one is genetically 'the same' as anything a million yrs ago.
There are Jews who believe that too? Damn, that's depressing.
I guess that depends on your point of view. Sure, on one hand dogs we've bred to be lapdogs would be terribly suited for the wild, but if it exhibits the right traits we'll be more likely to breed it. In any case I'm not sure how well the topic of breeding fits in with natural selection.
Point is that species change even if they don't appear to have. The coelacanth was initially believed to not have changed from fossils until people started looking harder at it. The coelacanth from the fossil record is quite different from the coelacanth swimming off the coast of Madagascar.
Don't forget the banana. That's our greatest nightmare, you know.
Every individual is 'different' genetically. From their parents, from anything, so I'm not sure what your point is. It's not evolution and it's not speciation. Genes are shuffled a great deal (understatement) in every population. That is diversity...that is any population's greatest strength. Is that what you are referring to?
I'm just pointing out that merely because a species like the horseshoe crab doesn't appear to have changed much in eons doesn't mean it actually hasn't changed much in eons. FYI, you should check out the WND and other forums on this topic. So many dumb users saying there are no transitional fossils and that evolution is nothing but a lie.
Boy, makes me ashamed to be an American. Idiots like that running all over the country.
What's missing at the heart of your question is an understanding of time and geological isolation that allows speciation to occur. If you have one species and a group of that species migrates to another location, in time (a long, long time), that group will evolve into a species that is different from the original. Should those two groups meet up again and attempt to mate, they will either not be able to reproduce or its young will be sterile. With enough speciation the two wouldn't even dream of attempting to mate with each other.
There's interbreeding (a male donkey and a female horse = mule). These hybrid animals cannot reproduce. Mules don't have mule babies. They are mere a byproduct of mating between two similar species.
Then there's evolution - passing down strong genetic traits generation to generation.
Example of a 'mutant' as you're labeling it would be a child born with a myostatin deficiency - a condition which causes excessive muscle growth. If the child receives the genetic mutation from one parent, their anomalies won't be quite so noticeable. If they receive it from both parents they're going to be noticeably stronger - visually - a little Hercules. If such a person has children with another person who is, also, mystatin deficient, the odds are high that they'll pass that onto their kids. So on - so forth.
The genetic passing stops when the trait comes to an end.
It baffles me that people can "reject" evolution when it happens, observably, every single day with antibiotic-resistant bacteria.
Life adapts.
One-third of Americans reject evolution, poll shows
Okay - who here rejects evolution?
Show of hands please.
"Republicans" are growing skeptical???? Really?
Like there's growing evidence against evolution?
"evolution"of the growing Democratic demographics of the electorate?I'm still enthralled by the notion that "Republicans have grown more skeptical about it".
What exactly is there to be skeptical of?
Not shocked and the problem is that SOME people think that if they believe in evolution then they can believe in god and thats simply not true.
People make it a black white issue and of course its not
If people want to debate of mans origins feel free but nobody educated flat out denies evolution in general, it exist and that fact wont change. If you want to debate how man evolved/came into existence have at it but regardless evolution itself has already been proven.
Chimps and Bonobos are genus Pan. Family Hominidae, maybe that's what you mean.
You're probably right about why the close relationship bothers people, though. Hell, we share DNA with yeast.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?