(Pariah;26028)
Umm... not to throw a wrench into the woodworks, but I'll just make this point.To Jag and kriss and Denver! If kinds can only reproduce after its own kind, doesn't that throw the whole serpent seed teaching out the window? But I digress. Sorry.For the ongoing discussion, I would like to point out that man had ceated a hybrid through gene splicing for a liger, a lion and a tiger for which the result is sterile. Cannot reproduce even with a male and female liger.This one supposedly from just trying to mix a lion with a tiger. Notice the same result which will be. Sterilization. Probably close enough in kind to produce one in kind but not enough to function as another kind of that kind in the "cat" family.
http://gothamist.com/2003/07/18/lions_and_...igers_oh_my.phpSo how does macro-evolution make it if micro-evolution has limitations in variations? If the evolutionary tree is true, would we not be able to reproduce with where we came from? The answer is "no" because that is not where we came from.AND do note... if blacks, orientals, and whites were all different kinds... they would not be able to reproduce, huh? Hmm........... does the possibility of no other races becoming more credible now as we are all related to Adam and Eve and thus Noah and His family ... or..? But I digress again... sort of. Just agreeing with thesuperjag, kriss, and Denver that kinds can only reproduce after its own kind.
Dear Pariah,I think perhaps you would do well to study evolution a little more extensively, as these questions are all answered... and some of them present obvious misunderstandings about evolution.I'll try to deal with them concisely. First, the Liger was simply found to not be able to produce offspring. That explains why it isn't a creature in nature. Because even when one could possibly come into existence, it cannot mate, and would likely be an outcast in the pack. This is called Natural Selection. See, animals are born with specific features. They aren't really ever perfect replicas of either parent. When a certain animal in a pack changes in a positive way, rather than a negative way {such as we see with the liger}, then that one happens to mate more, the characteristic is passed on more, and eventually more elephants are bigger, or more sharks are smaller, or more Tigers change color with the seasons, or more Finches act like woodpeckers with their skinny beaks, etc.That's basically how natural selection works. It says that if you give things ample time, nature itself sort of takes its course and naturally the better, stronger, or more fit for the environment specimen have their characteristics passed on more often.Now, let's imagine a scenario. First, you get a pack of wild cats. Then the pack gets really large, and at one point, splits due to some geological disaster, or something of the sort, you can feel free to use your imagination. So, the pack splits, and resides in two different environments. Then, over time, each pack develops characteristics which are beneficial given their habitat throughout the pack. When these two packs find each other again, they do not seem recognizable. Say, Tigers and Lions. Now, can they still mate? Well, sometimes yes, and sometimes no {Tigers and Lions can, but I'm speaking to the broad example.} There is no guarantee that they will be able to mate successfully at all. They have both changed variously. Sometimes creatures can, sometimes they can't. Generally the longer one pack is secluded from the other, the less likely they are still compatible, and the more often one is exposed to the other, the more likely they are still compatible.However, there are a few things to understand beyond this as well, and clarify. For example, you seem to think that we can't go back and "recreate" ourselves... here;(Pariah;26028)
If the evolutionary tree is true, would we not be able to reproduce with where we came from? The answer is "no" because that is not where we came from.
First, if you are talking about being able to reproduce with our ape like ancestor, then I would imagine we could, but evolution does not by any means guarantee that {to my knowledge of genetics anyway}. However, this isn't something we can test, as the other "packs" {Orangutans, Gorillas, and Chimpanzees} have all evolved as well, and we've all been secluded from each other.Keep in mind, we have observed species splitting into packs, forming different characteristics, and not being able to mate with each other any longer when we bring them back together. This isn't uncommon. However, it shouldn't be mistaken as a "limitation" to "micro-evolution", because micro-evolution does not always produce a positive trait which can be successfully passed on, nor does it always produce a trait which cannot be successfully passed on.So, no, there is no problem with Micro-evolution in the way that you suggest. [edit because of misinformation. My bad
]As to your last paragraph... would you mind making that a little more clear?
