Species is a man made definition of reproduction function loss. You want to call organisms who have lost the function to reproduce, a new species - I am cool with that. It is not macro-evolution.But you are arguing against the idea that changes in DNA can result in the existence of a new species. What is your justification for challenging this view.
That is the entire issue. What do you think it is?What is macro-evolution?
You are just defining words to suit your own bias. It is scientifically evident that Dna changes can result in biological changes. You have yet to provide a reasonable counter argument as to why a new species cannot be the result of Dna changes.Species is a man made definition of reproduction function loss. You want to call organisms who have lost the function to reproduce, a new species - I am cool with that. It is not macro-evolution.
It’s something that must’ve stop happening millions of year ago, because nothing right now is morphing into a completely new creature or plant .What is macro-evolution?
But you would be wrong.I think it is a nonsense word invented by anti-evolutionary creationists.
It can be. A deleterious mutation results in loss of reproduction function and we call this a new species.You are just defining words to suit your own bias. It is scientifically evident that Dna changes can result in biological changes. You have yet to provide a reasonable counter argument as to why a new species cannot be the result of Dna changes.
Whales were always whales?Evolution doesnt say that organisms will morph into completely new creatures or plants.
They are extremely rare and usually will affect other parts of the organism in negative ways.What about a beneficial mutation?
Your understanding of macroevolution is faulty. Evolution does not produce things that are “completely” new. It produces things that are partly new and partly the same. You are partly different from your parents and partly (mostly) the same. The same applies to species. Horses are partly the same and partly different from donkeys. Kangaroos are partly the same and partly different from wombats.It’s something that must’ve stop happening millions of year ago, because nothing right now is morphing into a completely new creature or plant .
Whales are mammals. They share characteristics with their mammalian ancestors. They are partly new, not completely new.Whales were always whales?
Or share commonly designed features.Whales are mammals. They share characteristics with their mammalian ancestors. They are partly new, not completely new.
Yet the fossil record has not been closing the gaps. They are inferred.That is why we can tell what older organisms contemporary organisms are related to.