The biology books in my country are written so hard, that the author's idea is actually to be so hard to learn, so the children will give up on learning. And this was way easier to understand, thank you
ibex Love Simple. Go outside and start digging. You'll find the bodies of birds, rabbits, housecats, dogs, etc if you dig within a few feet. If you dig waaaaaaaaaay deeper, you won't find bodies of those animals anymore. Instead you'll find fossils of Dinosaurs and other species that are no longer alive. How would you explain this without macroevolution? Did someone dig these animals up, fossilize a few of them, and rebuiry them in an order for no reason?
Juicebox Industries ok. Well you’ve completely misinterpreted evolution there. We are primates. Humans are a great ape alongside Chimpanzees, Gorrillas, Bonobos and orangutanes. Humans did NOT evolve from chimps gorrillas or monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to the chimpanzee etc. We share a common ancestor. An ape. That ape was from around 7 million years ago (I think it was that long ago) From that ape, 4 branches split off and those 4 branches....humans, Chimps, Gorillas and Bonobos. We evolved alongside chimps gorillas etc, not from them. And it’s interesting you mention a whale, because that is an animal in which we have staggering evidence of it evolutionary path. A hippopotamus is a very close relative to the whale interestingly. We can actually track the whales evolutionary path really really well, it lost its legs over time...a very long time. I hope you understand now, evolution is a very very complex thing, and instead of choosing to understand it, people just choose to not believe in it because they don’t understand it.👍
Micro evolution leads to sub species ,and macro evolution leads to formation of new species but it may connect different genus or different families or different order or different classes or different phylums I think so.
If you aren't learning about micro- and macro-evolution until senior year of college, I think you have bigger issues, mainly, how did you even get into college and why would you take a course like zoology.
I think you should make more videos in deeper concepts and topics from evolution biology like at university level because your teaching is really good and well organized. Its a bit difficult for some to understand few concepts, so it would be great! Thanks for the videos and they are really good.
Well new research shows that dogs didn’t directly evolve from wolves instead they share a common ancestor with wolves. Which is similar to how we share a common ancestor with chimps.
@@shomusbiologyofficial That thumb nail picture was taken from Wort und Wissen. You should at least give credit to the creator. Johannes Weiss or Frank Meyer.
Microevolution: The genetic variation within a species that has been there ever since the species was created. Macroevolution: An imaginary fictional process of nucleotide base changes leading to new species and morphological forms.
What is the genus name and species name of this new species? What are the changes in the nucleotide base sequence that brought this new species into existence?
@@vesuvandoppelganger what do you exactly think a species is? According to the biological species concept, a species is a group of organisms capable of producing fertile/viable offspring amongst each other. When two populations of species are separated for long periods of time, enough changes could occur for them to become incompatible, which would result in them becoming two different species.
Hi shomu... your explanation is good showing types of Evolution but you are missing Mega evolution which is what you showed as Macro evolution. Macro evolution leads when there is creation of different class, order or phyla.
All living organisms are equally evolved... Humans are not the "highest". A nematode has had just as many years since the primordial soup as a human. Humans are simply one of millions of mutated possibilities.
My research has determined microevolution is self evident and can be seen. But macroevolution is impossible do to several reasons:1. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. 2.Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables. 3.Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. 4.Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong. Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. There is much more, the point being if you take a watch and smash it, put it into a bag and shake it, it will never put itself back together, to matter how much time goes by. Time does not make impossible things possible. I believe more and more our origins are being hidden from us, the reasons yet unknown to many. To control the masses you control what their origins are.
mutation in the scale of millions of years is your answer. there is also a link to every species in this world called carbon which is the base of every organic life form on earth. maybe you should do some more research since these things i just said were basic information. maybe try to put your tinfoil hat aside when you do your research this time.
"What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?" Over enough time? Practically inevitable. "Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs" This is based on what? We haven't been selectively breeding dogs for very long. Give us enough time and we'll get our dogs with retractable claws. "DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection." Speciation falls under microevolution. Macroevolution is evolution in the genus or higher. Speciation is already accepted as observable in repeatable experiment.
@@Cowz19999 Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. I don't care what kind of claws a dog has, its still a dog. Not a cat. You did NOT read what I wrote you just skimmed through it. The theory of macro evolution is a fairy tail. The fossil records show that. A cow will never become a rat, a fish will never grow legs and become a lizard. You live in fantasy land. You need to read what I wrote and start looking at the new science. If you want to live on the planet of the apes go right ahead. How much grant money does it take to change a duck into a rat?
@@mindtap7283 "Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible." Yes it does. Ricky Gervais said it best. Give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time and eventually that monkey will write the entire works of Shakespeare to the letter. You don't seem to grasp the concept of eternity so that puts you on the same level as Karl Pilkington. "I don't care what kind of claws a dog has, its still a dog." In nature, only species exist. No genus, no kingdom, no other taxonomy. The idea of feline or canine is entirely made up by man, we divide animals into groups based on specific characteristics that we can see. Define what a dog is, define what a cat is.
@@Cowz19999 You must know the deference between "Natural selection" in nature, without mans intervention. Not "developed" as you put it. This is with mans intervention along with 'experiment" these are all interference by man, not natural or in the wild. If you would read my comment carefully you would see that I explicitly use the words "Natural selection". This is to identify the difference. As I said " Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit." Or in laymen's terms, "a dog will never have a cat in the wild", nor will a Hippo ever have a chicken and so on. Differences in dogs comes from human involvement in the domestication of a wild animal, the gray wolf. This caused diversity in size, conformation, and pelage seen today in domestic canines. This is not through natural selection but mankind intervention.
But if microevolution is constant, amounting to tiny changes over time that lead to “jumps” in species, we should discover millions of years of mixed species fossils, correct? Where are these?
Macroevolution is just the accumulation of a lot of microevolution. All species are on the same tree of life. The taxonomy is just a way to place them. All offspring are the same species as their parents. I look forward to another hypothesis... that isn't based on a magical being.
You may as well just say you prefer the idea that God isn't real regardless of evolution, since evolution is not mutually exclusive with God. It could have been the mechanism by which God utilised in the universes progression since creation. It's crazy how many atheists don't realise this and crazy how many creationists don't realise this. If us humans evolved into the form we are now - how does that exclude the idea that God created us?
@Matthew Tenorio_3200654 To be honest with you I think that's a fair position. It's more honest than a lot of atheists which would just say conclusively that God DOES NOT exist because evolution/science. Which is absurd since that nature of God is supernatural & science concerns that which is natural. So I think it's reasonable to be agnostic in that you understand that there is a possibility for a super natural power, but you may not be convinced that it is the God of the bible.
Hi Shomu, I think you have mistaken the meanings of micro-evolution and macro-evolution. These term are used by creationists, primarily biblical creationists. There is only one evolution. The change of allele frequency in a population over time. All evolution is 'micro'. However, that very small change accumulates over time. We then have 'macro' evolution. Also, evolution occurs within one population. Separate populations do not evolve together. Other populations only affect as they compete for resources.
Ohh. Does evolution end now? Do they thought by themselves to make a man and women? It's simply you are neglecting the God and try to tell that cell though by self I have to make myself into this and this... Where from these cells got sense?
I can understand why some people don't believe in macroevolution since people explain it so poorly. Cheetahs are an example of a cat turning into something other than a cat. They are the only living species of cat that don't have a cutaneous sheath around their claws. Imagine that you came up with a list of all the characteristics that an animal has to have in order to be 100% cat. Let's say that having a cutaneous sheath is one of those characteristics. Just to make the math easy, let's say that your list contains 20 characteristics and that the cheetah has the other 19 characteristics. Wouldn't that make cheetahs only 95% cat? Now, all cats belong to the family felidae. Since cheetahs arent 100% cat, do they really belong to the family felidae? Personally, I think the cut off point should be at least 50%... anything at least 50% cat belongs to the family felidae. However, it's arbitrary. A lot of people don't know this, but the species taxon is the only taxon that is found in nature... everything else, including the family taxon, are man-made. I can't overestimate how important it is for you to understand and accept that last sentence. Think about it in order to understand it's implications. None of the species of cat alive today are 100% cat unless you simply define one of the species as being 100% cat. It's your right to do so, since again, it's totally man-made. But as soon as you define one species as being 100% cat then that automatically means that none of the others are 100% cat. To make matters worse, some of those 20 characteristics that cats have may be subjective and not completely black and white. For example, let's say that being agile was one of your 20 characteristics. There are over 40 species of cats still alive today. Surely some of them are more agile than others. What if the cheetah is only 80% agile? Wouldn't that bring down it's cat percentage down to 94% (5 x .80 = 4)? And surely, if you believe in speciation, in a few hundred thousand years a new species can arise from the cheetah that only has 18 characteristics. So it's even less of a cat than the cheetah and even closer to that 50% cut off point that I previously mentioned. Now, some people will object by saying that a cutaneous sheath shouldn't be necessary in order for an animal to be considered a cat. But again, it's a man-made list, and I'm a man, so I can make that decision if I want. If you don't like my list, then you can certainly make your own list, but surely, if your list is a good list, any future species can lose one or more characteristics until they are less than 50% of whatever animal you are talking about. In fact, depending on what characteristics are on your list, it's even possible that some species of cats are already less than 50% and don't actually belong in the family felidae. I mean, it's not as though taxonomists are gods and can't make mistakes. Perhaps the cheetah currently isn't a cat. I'm not saying that it isn't at least 50% cat; I'm saying that I don't know and neither do you. Think about it.
Macroevolution has the odds stacked against it as it would require information added to the genetic code, which might sound plausible until you consider that each new animal type would require new cell types, which require new proteins. Even then it might sound possible because of how much time it is estimated to have had to evolve. But the chances of randomly creating a _single_ working protein through chance, even if it is one of the simplest proteins is 1 in 10 to the 164th power(if it were a simple, 150 amino acid long chain).
Yet science teaches that 'macro' evolution is a fact. How do you explain this? Either you right, and you are just being tardy in claiming your Nobel prize, or perhaps the scientists that practice biological science at the universities and research institutes are right. I think I will go with science on this one, rather than your opinion.
@@dgrant9127 "Creationists do their own calculations to show that the chance formation of biologically useful proteins is impossible. These calculations almost always involve the erroneous assumption that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position. Since there are twenty different amino acids available for each position, the chance of randomly getting a string of 200 amino acids all in the right order is (1/20)200. If you plug this expression into a calculator, it will tell you that it equals essentially zero. Thus, the creationists say, you can't get such a protein by a chance ordering of amino acids. As Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) put it (1976), "The time required for a single catalytically active protein molecule to arise by pure chance would be billions of times the assumed age of the earth." But proteins, even modern highly evolved specialized proteins, are not built with that degree of specificity. What's more, many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids (Doolittle, 1981) or they have a simple metalo-organic core that could have functioned alone as a primitive precursor of today's complex enzyme. So the creationist calculations give an answer of zero probability because the creationists make at least two major errors in their assumptions: they assume a degree of specificity that has not been shown to exist in real proteins, and they insist that newly formed proteins must be as efficient as their older and highly evolved counterparts."
cars also change over time. doest it mean that it will evolve into an airplane? lets say that they was even self replicate. check also this site creation.com
xXSkullDudeXx its evolution logic. if we will find a watch with a self replicating system and dna. is this kind of watch will be evidence for design or evolution?
The biology books in my country are written so hard, that the author's idea is actually to be so hard to learn, so the children will give up on learning. And this was way easier to understand, thank you
Thank you. Glad you liked my lectures
wat country?
The picture at the end explained everything perfectly
Really? What is the evidence of "Macroevolution"?
ibex Love Simple. Go outside and start digging. You'll find the bodies of birds, rabbits, housecats, dogs, etc if you dig within a few feet.
If you dig waaaaaaaaaay deeper, you won't find bodies of those animals anymore. Instead you'll find fossils of Dinosaurs and other species that are no longer alive. How would you explain this without macroevolution? Did someone dig these animals up, fossilize a few of them, and rebuiry them in an order for no reason?
ibex Love The first thing you have to ask yourself is what's the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution
Juicebox Industries ok. Well you’ve completely misinterpreted evolution there. We are primates. Humans are a great ape alongside Chimpanzees, Gorrillas, Bonobos and orangutanes. Humans did NOT evolve from chimps gorrillas or monkeys. We evolved from a common ancestor to the chimpanzee etc. We share a common ancestor. An ape. That ape was from around 7 million years ago (I think it was that long ago) From that ape, 4 branches split off and those 4 branches....humans, Chimps, Gorillas and Bonobos. We evolved alongside chimps gorillas etc, not from them. And it’s interesting you mention a whale, because that is an animal in which we have staggering evidence of it evolutionary path. A hippopotamus is a very close relative to the whale interestingly. We can actually track the whales evolutionary path really really well, it lost its legs over time...a very long time. I hope you understand now, evolution is a very very complex thing, and instead of choosing to understand it, people just choose to not believe in it because they don’t understand it.👍
Sermonia Games has evolution been proven fully with no doubts?
Micro evolution leads to sub species ,and macro evolution leads to formation of new species but it may connect different genus or different families or different order or different classes or different phylums I think so.
Yes absolutely right... and the change from amoeba or unicellular organism to Humans is Mega evolution.
I'm a senior in college taking zoology for the first time, and this explained it so much better than my professor did. Thank you!!
If you aren't learning about micro- and macro-evolution until senior year of college, I think you have bigger issues, mainly, how did you even get into college and why would you take a course like zoology.
@@longliverocknroll5 😂🤣😂😂
i won't skip the ad because i owe you too much.. thank you
Thank you
thank you so much I learned a lot from you ! God bless !! and good luck for my presentation 🥹🩷
You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're getting benefit from my lectures
I think you should make more videos in deeper concepts and topics from evolution biology like at university level because your teaching is really good and well organized. Its a bit difficult for some to understand few concepts, so it would be great! Thanks for the videos and they are really good.
Thank you sir informative video in less time ❤
You're welcome
Differentiation of the micro and macro chart super and lot of thanks
Glad it helped
Super
the picture at the end was very helpful thanks so much!
You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're getting benefit from my lectures
Thank you mate I was confuse but I understand a bit now
You're welcome
Well new research shows that dogs didn’t directly evolve from wolves instead they share a common ancestor with wolves. Which is similar to how we share a common ancestor with chimps.
That's how it works
great work
Thank you
Thankyou soo much sir for great explanation😇💐
You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're getting benefit from my lectures
Short and sweet 👍
Thank you. Glad you liked my lectures
Loved this! Thank you so much sir
You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're getting benefit from my lectures
Ur amazing as usual
Thank you
You're welcome
Perfect
You're welcome
You explained it perfectly, thank you !!
You're welcome. Glad to hear that you're getting benefit from my lectures
@@shomusbiologyofficial That thumb nail picture was taken from Wort und Wissen.
You should at least give credit to the creator. Johannes Weiss or Frank Meyer.
I love your videos. They help a lot. I will recommend subscribing to this channel.
very helpful in cramming for my Bio-Anthro final! thanks!
Microevolution: The genetic variation within a species that has been there ever since the species was created.
Macroevolution: An imaginary fictional process of nucleotide base changes leading to new species and morphological forms.
We've literally observed speciation
What is the genus name and species name of this new species? What are the changes in the nucleotide base sequence that brought this new species into existence?
@@vesuvandoppelganger what do you exactly think a species is? According to the biological species concept, a species is a group of organisms capable of producing fertile/viable offspring amongst each other.
When two populations of species are separated for long periods of time, enough changes could occur for them to become incompatible, which would result in them becoming two different species.
Hi shomu... your explanation is good showing types of Evolution but you are missing Mega evolution which is what you showed as Macro evolution.
Macro evolution leads when there is creation of different class, order or phyla.
I will make s new version of this topic
Sir please make a video on Ring species
4:17
Dogs are not descended from wolves. Wolves and the different breeds of dogs were separately created.
All living organisms are equally evolved... Humans are not the "highest". A nematode has had just as many years since the primordial soup as a human. Humans are simply one of millions of mutated possibilities.
Sir but here mega-evolution is missing.
Thanks
My research has determined microevolution is self evident and can be seen. But macroevolution is impossible do to several reasons:1. What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places? Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible.
2.Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. The same process of selective breeding is done with flowers, fruits, and vegetables.
3.Why would a bird evolve wing stubs that are useless? This is backwards from the evolutionary theory of natural selection, which states that birds adapt and change in order to survive better in their environment. The bird with a half-size wing is placed at a disadvantage in its environment. 4.Species Without a Link Prove Evolution Theory is Wrong. Charles Darwin admitted that fossils of the transitional links between species would have to be found in order to prove his "Theory of Evolution." Well, these transitional links have never been found. We only find individual species. All life forms would be a continual blend of characteristics without a clear definition among the species. Everything would be changing, and every animal, insect, and plant would be different. Despite the tremendous increase in geological activity in every corner of the globe and despite the discovery of many strange and hitherto unknown forms, the infinitude of connecting links has still not been discovered and the fossil record is about as discontinuous as it was when Darwin was writing the Origin. There is much more, the point being if you take a watch and smash it, put it into a bag and shake it, it will never put itself back together, to matter how much time goes by. Time does not make impossible things possible. I believe more and more our origins are being hidden from us, the reasons yet unknown to many. To control the masses you control what their origins are.
mutation in the scale of millions of years is your answer. there is also a link to every species in this world called carbon which is the base of every organic life form on earth. maybe you should do some more research since these things i just said were basic information. maybe try to put your tinfoil hat aside when you do your research this time.
"What are the odds that a simple single cell organism could evolve given the complexity of more than 60,000 proteins of 100 different configurations all in the correct places?"
Over enough time? Practically inevitable.
"Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs"
This is based on what? We haven't been selectively breeding dogs for very long. Give us enough time and we'll get our dogs with retractable claws.
"DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection."
Speciation falls under microevolution. Macroevolution is evolution in the genus or higher. Speciation is already accepted as observable in repeatable experiment.
@@Cowz19999 Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible. I don't care what kind of claws a dog has, its still a dog. Not a cat.
You did NOT read what I wrote you just skimmed through it. The theory of macro evolution is a fairy tail. The fossil records show that. A cow will never become a rat, a fish will never grow legs and become a lizard. You live in fantasy land. You need to read what I wrote and start looking at the new science. If you want to live on the planet of the apes go right ahead. How much grant money does it take to change a duck into a rat?
@@mindtap7283 "Never in eternity! Time does not make impossible things possible."
Yes it does. Ricky Gervais said it best. Give a monkey a typewriter and an infinite amount of time and eventually that monkey will write the entire works of Shakespeare to the letter.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of eternity so that puts you on the same level as Karl Pilkington.
"I don't care what kind of claws a dog has, its still a dog."
In nature, only species exist. No genus, no kingdom, no other taxonomy. The idea of feline or canine is entirely made up by man, we divide animals into groups based on specific characteristics that we can see.
Define what a dog is, define what a cat is.
@@Cowz19999 You must know the deference between "Natural selection" in nature, without mans intervention. Not "developed" as you put it. This is with mans intervention along with 'experiment" these are all interference by man, not natural or in the wild.
If you would read my comment carefully you would see that I explicitly use the words "Natural selection". This is to identify the difference. As I said " Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit." Or in laymen's terms, "a dog will never have a cat in the wild", nor will a Hippo ever have a chicken and so on.
Differences in dogs comes from human involvement in the domestication of a wild animal, the gray wolf. This caused diversity in size, conformation, and pelage seen today in domestic canines. This is not through natural selection but mankind intervention.
I wanna crack Csir net jrf,,plzzz suggest the only chapters from which I will get selected..less time more preparation 😔
an example to the macroevolution is that pea turns into a cow
🤦♂️
You're an idiot
Sir I think it's btr that you use the white board itself..coz this brings lag in between...just a suggestion ☺️
Now, I use white board lectures only
micro is possibly but no way macro is
Macro is going on. You won't experience it as in far future it will be visible
Macro evolution is possible fossil records of early hominins prove this
But if microevolution is constant, amounting to tiny changes over time that lead to “jumps” in species, we should discover millions of years of mixed species fossils, correct? Where are these?
One is science and the other is wild fantasy.
Microevolution is observable, Macroevolution isn't and is more of a theory right, still learning?
Yes
Macroevolution is just the accumulation of a lot of microevolution. All species are on the same tree of life. The taxonomy is just a way to place them. All offspring are the same species as their parents. I look forward to another hypothesis... that isn't based on a magical being.
You may as well just say you prefer the idea that God isn't real regardless of evolution, since evolution is not mutually exclusive with God. It could have been the mechanism by which God utilised in the universes progression since creation.
It's crazy how many atheists don't realise this and crazy how many creationists don't realise this.
If us humans evolved into the form we are now - how does that exclude the idea that God created us?
@Matthew Tenorio_3200654 To be honest with you I think that's a fair position. It's more honest than a lot of atheists which would just say conclusively that God DOES NOT exist because evolution/science. Which is absurd since that nature of God is supernatural & science concerns that which is natural. So I think it's reasonable to be agnostic in that you understand that there is a possibility for a super natural power, but you may not be convinced that it is the God of the bible.
Hi Shomu,
I think you have mistaken the meanings of micro-evolution and macro-evolution.
These term are used by creationists, primarily biblical creationists.
There is only one evolution. The change of allele frequency in a population over time.
All evolution is 'micro'. However, that very small change accumulates over time.
We then have 'macro' evolution.
Also, evolution occurs within one population. Separate populations do not evolve together.
Other populations only affect as they compete for resources.
What software is that?
1:15 ur welcome
Thank you sir I now discovered how much my ears can bleed
Ohh. Does evolution end now?
Do they thought by themselves to make a man and women?
It's simply you are neglecting the God and try to tell that cell though by self I have to make myself into this and this... Where from these cells got sense?
Who said that cells have consciousness
I can understand why some people don't believe in macroevolution since people explain it so poorly. Cheetahs are an example of a cat turning into something other than a cat. They are the only living species of cat that don't have a cutaneous sheath around their claws.
Imagine that you came up with a list of all the characteristics that an animal has to have in order to be 100% cat. Let's say that having a cutaneous sheath is one of those characteristics. Just to make the math easy, let's say that your list contains 20 characteristics and that the cheetah has the other 19 characteristics. Wouldn't that make cheetahs only 95% cat? Now, all cats belong to the family felidae. Since cheetahs arent 100% cat, do they really belong to the family felidae? Personally, I think the cut off point should be at least 50%... anything at least 50% cat belongs to the family felidae. However, it's arbitrary.
A lot of people don't know this, but the species taxon is the only taxon that is found in nature... everything else, including the family taxon, are man-made. I can't overestimate how important it is for you to understand and accept that last sentence. Think about it in order to understand it's implications. None of the species of cat alive today are 100% cat unless you simply define one of the species as being 100% cat. It's your right to do so, since again, it's totally man-made. But as soon as you define one species as being 100% cat then that automatically means that none of the others are 100% cat.
To make matters worse, some of those 20 characteristics that cats have may be subjective and not completely black and white. For example, let's say that being agile was one of your 20 characteristics. There are over 40 species of cats still alive today. Surely some of them are more agile than others. What if the cheetah is only 80% agile? Wouldn't that bring down it's cat percentage down to 94% (5 x .80 = 4)? And surely, if you believe in speciation, in a few hundred thousand years a new species can arise from the cheetah that only has 18 characteristics. So it's even less of a cat than the cheetah and even closer to that 50% cut off point that I previously mentioned.
Now, some people will object by saying that a cutaneous sheath shouldn't be necessary in order for an animal to be considered a cat. But again, it's a man-made list, and I'm a man, so I can make that decision if I want. If you don't like my list, then you can certainly make your own list, but surely, if your list is a good list, any future species can lose one or more characteristics until they are less than 50% of whatever animal you are talking about. In fact, depending on what characteristics are on your list, it's even possible that some species of cats are already less than 50% and don't actually belong in the family felidae. I mean, it's not as though taxonomists are gods and can't make mistakes. Perhaps the cheetah currently isn't a cat. I'm not saying that it isn't at least 50% cat; I'm saying that I don't know and neither do you. Think about it.
Macroevolution has the odds stacked against it as it would require information added to the genetic code, which might sound plausible until you consider that each new animal type would require new cell types, which require new proteins. Even then it might sound possible because of how much time it is estimated to have had to evolve. But the chances of randomly creating a _single_ working protein through chance, even if it is one of the simplest proteins is 1 in 10 to the 164th power(if it were a simple, 150 amino acid long chain).
Yet science teaches that 'macro' evolution is a fact. How do you explain this? Either you right, and you are just being tardy in claiming your Nobel prize, or perhaps the scientists that practice biological science at the universities and research institutes are right. I think I will go with science on this one, rather than your opinion.
@@dgrant9127 "Creationists do their own calculations to show that the chance formation of biologically useful proteins is impossible. These calculations almost always involve the erroneous assumption that each of the many amino acid positions in a protein must be filled by the one particular amino acid suitable for that position. Since there are twenty different amino acids available for each position, the chance of randomly getting a string of 200 amino acids all in the right order is (1/20)200. If you plug this expression into a calculator, it will tell you that it equals essentially zero. Thus, the creationists say, you can't get such a protein by a chance ordering of amino acids. As Duane Gish of the Institute for Creation Research (ICR) put it (1976), "The time required for a single catalytically active protein molecule to arise by pure chance would be billions of times the assumed age of the earth."
But proteins, even modern highly evolved specialized proteins, are not built with that degree of specificity. What's more, many proteins show in their structure that they were built of smaller subunit sequences of amino acids (Doolittle, 1981) or they have a simple metalo-organic core that could have functioned alone as a primitive precursor of today's complex enzyme. So the creationist calculations give an answer of zero probability because the creationists make at least two major errors in their assumptions: they assume a degree of specificity that has not been shown to exist in real proteins, and they insist that newly formed proteins must be as efficient as their older and highly evolved counterparts."
cars also change over time. doest it mean that it will evolve into an airplane? lets say that they was even self replicate. check also this site creation.com
+dcscccc wtf dude a car aint organic lmaour point is poor :/
yungmeme
but if we will find a watch or a car with dna. you will think they just evolved?
what the fuck lmao
a watch made of wood is an organic watch. do you think its need a designer?yungmeme
xXSkullDudeXx
its evolution logic. if we will find a watch with a self replicating system and dna. is this kind of watch will be evidence for design or evolution?
this made no sence
You're welcome
Thanks
You're welcome