Board Thread:Suggestions forum/@comment-32918765-20171030193812/@comment-33009418-20171105085224

Sir Lazuli wrote: High King Ithilion wrote: I mean, we've never observed a two dogs giving birth to a cat or a dog with wings, that's definitely true. But that's because it takes thousands of years for mutations to stack up and do that. We shouldn't expect to be able to observe such a massive and drastic change happen with a single animal.

One way macroevolution can happen rapidly, though, is through hybridization--two organisms can hybridize and that hybrid can breed with another hybrid. Then, through constant inbreeding, they develop unique features and lose the ability to breed with non-hybrids. Eventually, they become unique species.

The fish's origin is certainly interperetable to both ways, though. Both are possible in the situtation--unique mutation or selected traits.

Ithilion, Discussions Moderator (Auta i lómë) Hybridization is a fascinating study. It can definitely successfully result in the creation of a new independent species. However, the usual case is that hybrids cannot reproduce. Also may I point out that hybridization only combines information already in the parents’ genetic code. It doesn’t add new information. So I wouldn’t call it macroevolution. Or at least, it’s not enough to explain all the variety we see in this world.

Another thought experiment to chew on: Suppose for the sake of argument that we have a creature evolving wings. If we look at the species before the wings are functional, we will find a creature with clumsy appendages with no use. It will be much less fit to survive than its ancestors who did not have unnecessary baggage to carry around. It cannot hunt or evade prey as easily. Natural selection, if it works the way it is theorized to, will weed out that creature, and it will have no descendants to ever really fly. There’s no way something like wings could come about over a gradual process if we take natural selection into account. It had to happen fully formed. The same goes for many other complicated anatomical structures, like eyes. Not only does adaptation fail to provide the incremental changes you say cause macroevolution, but if it did natural selection would weed out those changes before they could amount to anything.

Good lord, where to start on this...

Some hybrids can breed, look at a pissly (polar bear + grizzly). Mutations aren't just changes to genetic code, it can also be removed &/or copied genes (may have 0, 1, or 2 copies of the same gene). From there, mutation can alter those genes further. Case is point: some primates can't see color. In the past all primates could only see blue & green. Then at a certain point, a mutation occurred that copied the blue seeing gene again. From there, over a few thousand years, the copied gene mutated enough to allow some primates to see red. This provided an advantage, so that those primates could tell which fruits where ripe & unripe, or possibly identify predators. Because of this advantage, the primates in the same area without the ability to see red died out because they didn't have the advantage. Similarly, eyes didn't happen instantly, the fossil record shows that, at first, there were no eyes. Over time some creatures developed light sensing areas (not eyes, just because you can tell it's light doesn't mean you can see color, shape, or direction), that then became more complicated with time. The same thing with teeth, jaws, skin, scales, feathers, & yes, eventually wings. The changes are gradual, over hundreds of thousands of years, it doesn't just happen in, say, 10 generations.