>> |
Anonymous
>>163643 It's that hard to understand, isn't it?
Lots of small changes in a species does make a new species. If you don't believe me, look: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation
And if you don't believe wiki, then: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html If you don't believe that, you're up to your own research. But now you know where to start.
Furthermore, I notice you've chosen one of the most dynamic species we know of as some sort of proof that speciation is impossible. Not only this, but you've narrowed the timeline of evolution down to 15,000 years. Give it 15,000 more. Even if it takes 30,000... 300,000. It doesn't matter, that amount of time is an evolutionary pittance.
If you can't figure out how new, important traits can be introduced, expanded upon, and grow to define a creature... I don't know what to tell you. There is no microevolution, there is no macroevolution; it is all just evolution.
>Its DNA isn't going to add a line on how to make feathers and hollow its bones so it can fly to a lusher, greener, environment.
DEAR GOD THAT'S NOT HOW EVOLUTION WORKS.
>>163645 The article claims we have never observed DNA creation from base elements, then goes on to say that sort of coincidental creation is exceedingly rare. Why would anyone be surprised that we haven't seen it? To say that it is possible is enough. If an event happens, the probability of it occurring is unimportant.
|