Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-32918765-20171030193812/@comment-33185350-20171104050134

S&#039;moregoth wrote: Sir Lazuli wrote:

High King Ithilion wrote: But, certainly, it can be argued that the large eyes could easily just be a mutation that happened and was successful?

Also, according to research I could find, microevolution is evolution that keeps it the same species, while macroevolution changes the taxa. There's no difference in mechanism, just timescale.

Ithilion, Discussions Moderator (Auta i lómë) It sounds to me like adaptation, because of the way it’s described, but of course it’s possible it was a successful mutation. However I believe microevolution does not involve mutation, but only the emphasis of certain genes already present, while macroevolution is a change in a creature’s genome. That is what causes the taxa to change. Anyway I don’t think anybody else really cares about this macro vs microevolution stuff. I am happy to keep debating it, but maybe we should open a thread somewhere else? Or otherwise just move on and let people discuss the actual subject of the thread here.

I would certainly be curious to see how this turns out (as well as add some of my thoughts), but I agree that you should probably start a new thread.

Also, it's 3 on 2 now! If Ithilion is up for it I am. As long as it stays respectful and civilized. It’s all to easy for people to get angry and hateful about these things. It could be interesting though.

@Ithilion: What’s your opinion? Would you like to keep debating the subject, and should it be on another thread? Or should we move on?