{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
7/12/2015 2:31:50 AM
2
Natural selection doesn't negate the thinking. Whenever it is demonstrated in nature or even in textbooks, it doesn't create a new species, only variants.
English
-
If two organisms are fertile and cannot breed with each other, then they are separate species. This has been observed
-
Edited by FakeQuasiMixture: 7/12/2015 2:53:05 AM[quote]Natural selection doesn't negate the thinking.[/quote] If your thinking is that "devolution" prevents macroevolution via the negative mutations balancing out the positive, then yes, it does. [spoiler]You haven't explained how it prevents macroevolution from what I know. I'll read through the OP for clarification.[/spoiler] [quote]Whenever it is demonstrated in nature or even in textbooks, it doesn't create a new species, only variants.[/quote] We're talking about evolution as a whole, correct? Species to species evolution on a large scale hasn't been observed. We assume that if it's true in small scale, given time, it's true in large scale. You assume that some mechanism prevents this. Which is a more reasonable assumption? [b]Edit:[/b] you explained the process of cyclicality as a means of undermining macroevolution. Can you link to me the study about the mosquitos?
