- Joined
- Nov 7, 2010
- Messages
- 7,640
- Reaction score
- 2,827
- Location
- Your Head
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Very Conservative
ok, I was just trying to make sense of your post and figure out where your erroneous conclusions stemmed from. lets revisit them. I agree with your summation, macroevolution is basically evolutionary changes at or above the species level, while micro occurs without genetic isolation.
lets revisit your previous post
genetic isolation is a key point to the macro evolution definition, this is typically due to two divergent lines no longer being able to reproduce. Changes in isolated genes would be unique to that isolated population. This contradicts your "the entire species would have evolved on similar paths" part. When a population is isolated ti then goes on its own path due to its isolated mutations and isolated selective pressures.
In light of genetic isolation why would there be a repeat of accumulated mutations that occurred in a separate line to emerge yet again, especially when the occurrence of mutations part is random? There would be new mutations to select from, and new selective pressures working on them, all of this adds up to an emergence of something that would NOT be human since they would have taken an entirely different path due to the isolation of their genes and the circumstances.
New races of humans evolving out of primates is not what the theory of evolution would predict would happen. If that were to happen it would contradict the fundamentals of the process as we know it - what you are describing is not in any way congruent with the theory of evolution.
Geographic isolation can not explain why humans and other primates evolved from the same species or how humans evolved from the current set of primates. Evolution is a slow, slow process. As the theory goes, a gene mutation occurs and is then passed down from generation to generation until it consumes the entire species. As such, if humans began to evolve from primates, their genetic similarities would allow them to still mate and the genetics of primates or the genetics of humans would have become the primary makeup. In other words, if primates and humans lived in the same geographic regions (and as far as I know, they always have) then either the primates or the humans would have evolved into the same species. Since geographic isolation cannot account for the diverging genetic lines, the only logical conclusion is that humans and primates did not evolve from the same species.