Macroevolution

[@griffinmcculloch7754]

Thank you for the thorough and informative video! I enjoy learning about this stuff in my spare time.

[@JulieanneQuigley]

Your videos are great. Thank you! I shared them with my bio classes!

[@w3vjp568]

For a split second there I thought I had accidentally clicked on a Creedence Clearwater Revival video…

[@DrWendi]

hahaha :)

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

8:08 All of those lines drawn between separately created species is pretty convincing evidence for evolution.

[@evanhawes2528]

Well where do think they got those lines then? They don’t make them up

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

They used their imagination. So yes, the lines are made up.

[@evanhawes2528]

@@vesuvandoppelganger since when did they used there imagination?

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

When did they use their imagination? They used their imagination when they drew the lines.

[@evanhawes2528]

@@vesuvandoppelganger wheres the proof that this is fiction?

[@rollinjack902]

This isn’t macro this is micro

[@jlupus8804]

Speciation- seems more micro than macro.

[@DrWendi]

it is in a way, it is when microevolution goes on for a long time and then organisms gradually lose the ability to interbreed, then they are technically a new species :)

[@hfarthingt]

@@DrWendi it would then follow that humans genetically unable to interbreed are no longer human

[@DrWendi]

@@hfarthingt being infertile would be a different thing. But yes, suppose there was a group of humans that became isolated from other humans for a long period of time, then each group would evolve differently depending on their environment and eventually could be different enough to be considered a new species.

[@whatabouttheearth]

@@hfarthingt What? That makes no damn sense. Infertility is not the same as seperation in distance from a nodal point of speciation.

[@ailurophile4341]

None of this are macro. Finches... are still finches. Birds are still birds.

[@mashdzva]

The video explains how macro occurs. Time and chance play the biggest role. The best time to clearly see evolution occurring is during a mass extinction type of scenario, which has happened a couple of times. Fossils are the best way to show macro

[@ailurophile4341]

@@mashdzva Nope. That's just an assumption. Also, extinction rates are far greater than speciation rates throughtout history.

[@blaisenotpascal1052]

I don't really get how you can believe in micro evolution, but not in macro. It's like believing in inches, but not in feet. I highly suggest that you check out Kenneth Miller on evolution and ID. He's a devout Christian and scientist who explains the topic brilliantly.

[@ailurophile4341]

@@blaisenotpascal1052 Bro I study genetics too. It's all assumptions based on changes overtime.

[@whatabouttheearth]

You don't know what macroevolution is. Micro is change of genetic frequency WITHIN a population. Macro is change on the population (species) level, this includes speciation. You are so blind to what's right in front of your face, like legless lizards, birds with wings that can't fly, swimming birds like Penguins, red maned foxes, humans born with tails, whales having 5 finger bones, every tetrapod having a radius, ulna and humerus (unless they lost their arms) etc Prove comparative vertebrate anatomy and the Principal of Faunal Succession wrong, I dare you. Or at least study them.

[@vesuvandoppelganger]

Comparative embryology is not evidence for evolution. Comparative anatomy is not evidence for evolution. Comparing genomes is not evidence for evolution.

[@OrthodoxJoker]

It’s a lie. Jesus is king

[@gatshenindlovu230]

😂😂😂😂