Humans causing evolution

[connorlindeman]

Generational changes in genetic makeup driven by both the innate sexual genetic variance and environmental forces that either favor or disfavor those variances in reproducing individuals.

So mirco or macro evolution?
Horizontal or vertical evolution.

 

[Oblio]

So mirco or macro evolution?
Horizontal or vertical evolution.

What do you mean, how does the process differ from what I described above?

 

[connorlindeman]

What do you mean, how does the process differ from what I described above?

I want to make sure that I'm interpreting your post properly.

Micro Evolution:

1. evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.
   

Macroevolution:
my definition:
Slime to Human

 

[Oblio]

I want to make sure that I'm interpreting your post properly.

Micro Evolution:

1. evolutionary change within a species or small group of organisms, especially over a short period.

Macroevolution:
my definition:
Slime to Human

What I was asking is if there is a difference in how the evolutionary changes occur, or if the difference between micro and macro evolution lies in the end result?

Since we can agree that micro evolution is scientific fact (It is a feature of sexual reproduction), what precludes macroevolution?

 

[Oblio]

Macroevolution:
my definition:
Slime to Human

I realize this is your definition, but there are several problems with this. It is tied to one evolutionary path; and it is not time invariant. IOW, you are looking only at a specific evolutionary path in the past. What about the future? Could humans (or other species) evolve into separate and distinct species? If not, why not?

 

[connorlindeman]

What I was asking is if there is a difference in how the evolutionary changes occur, or if the difference between micro and macro evolution lies in the end result?

Since we can agree that micro evolution is scientific fact (It is a feature of sexual reproduction), what precludes macroevolution?

One of the great achievements of modern science is the discovery that it is possible for animals of the same species to show a huge range of variation without becoming completely different kinds of animals.
Genetic analysis shows that the individuals of a species do not share an identical set of genes, but instead have a few alternative versions of many genes. Only clones have the exact same genes and are essentially identical. The idea that each individual inherits allelic versions of genes from both parents insures that no two individuals will be exactly alike. Thus, we say that all the individuals of a species comprise a gene pool from which selection (either artificial or natural) can select. The very important point is that we cannot select for genes that are not in the gene pool of the species.

 

[connorlindeman]

Could humans (or other species) evolve into separate and distinct species? If not, why not?

No they could not. See my other post

 

[Guyb93]

Humans are not old enough to evolve in my opinion and an animal that’s top of its foods chain doesn’t need to change , our species is one of the newest species on the planet, maybe in a million years humans will lose things we don’t use anymore like our appendix or even or little finger and toe because they have non or very little function .

But my question is if there was a cancer that only effected hair follicles and was untreatable would humans start to all be bald to avoid this cancer ?

The thing with elephants losing tusks is subconscious it’s a change in there dna , if elephants knew losing tusks makes them live longer surely they would all be snapping them off

 

[connorlindeman]

little finger and toe because they have non or very little function .

Your balance will be very off without your little toe

 

[Oblio]

No they could not. See my other post

The very important point is that we cannot select for genes that are not in the gene pool of the species

This does not answer the question as to why microevolution cannot lead to new species.

What is your definition of a unique species?

 

[connorlindeman]

This does not answer the question as to why microevolution cannot lead to new species.

What is your definition of a unique species?

Two unique species are goldfish and guppies. Two unique species are not capable of interbreeding.

 

[Guyb93]

Your balance will be very off without your little toe

What about that South African geezer who shot his Mrs , Oscar pistorious or sumat , that man had no legs and would our run me no problem ahahah I’d trade my feet for something a bit more useful like an ash tray or a pint glass , not gonna lie I’d love to be disabled and before anybody jumps at me for saying this ,, I’m allowed ,my dad was a cripple and my sister is disabled I’m from a long line of Timmy’s
I might actually just start wheeling myself around in a wheelchair and skip lines and stuff , that is evolution of humans in my opinion do as lunch as you can by moving as little as you can

 

[connorlindeman]

What about that South African geezer who shot his Mrs , Oscar pistorious or sumat , that man had no legs and would our run me no problem ahahah I’d trade my feet for something a bit more useful like an ash tray or a pint glass , not gonna lie I’d love to be disabled and before anybody jumps at me for saying this ,, I’m allowed ,my dad was a cripple and my sister is disabled I’m from a long line of Timmy’s
I might actually just start wheeling myself around in a wheelchair and skip lines and stuff , that is evolution of humans in my opinion do as lunch as you can by moving as little as you can

interesting...

 

[jesusjones]

The key word is "mutation", the tusk less elephant is a MUTANT! and its taking over the world!
There is no attempt at evolution by an organism, mutants are born and if that mutation is favorable for the current environment it stands a higher chance of continuing to exist. Enough mutations over generations and you just might go from slime to typing on some forum. Micro, macro, it is all evolution, it is just how far back you stand when you look at it.

Humans have a pretty big impact on the environment.

 

[Oblio]

Two unique species are not capable of interbreeding.

So what scientific proof do you have that microevolution (which we have agreed exists) cannot lead to individuals that cannot interbreed?

Was H. neanderthalensis a separate species from H. sapiens?