Intelligent Falling

New Member
Joined
Nov 24, 2001
Messages
692
Best answers
0
As far as I understand it, microevolution and macroevolution differ only in time and scale. It's kind of silly to say one exists but the other doesn't when there is very little distinction between the two.
There are some caveats there. For macro evolution to be successful, every in between micro evolution step has to be profitable for the species, or at the very least not harm it. There are actually some very weird constructions in animals because of this constraint. If I remember correctly, the channel that connects the air-intake on the back of a whale was an example of that. It runs from his back forward to his mouth, then backward to the lungs, because it was originally connected to the mouth.
 
Cunning as Zeus
Banned
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
Joined
Nov 23, 2003
Messages
6,079
Best answers
0
I think this article is relevant, if only just barely:

http://www.livescience.com/animals/081005-oldest-footprints.html

For everyone about to jump on the, "LOL EARTH ISNT 6000 YEARS OLD" bandwagon, that isn't what I'm talking about. The idea of simple organisms evolving into more complex organisms, aquatic animals slowly making the transition to becoming terrestrial animals is what I walked away with after reading the article.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top Bottom