3
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 27:
Line 27: + + + +
Debate:Is the theory of macroevolution true? (view source)
Revision as of 17:31, March 12, 2007
, 17:31, March 12, 2007no edit summary
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#****'''Counter:''' Mutations are ''mostly'' harmful, but not always.
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Additional Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are an example of a mutation, so is corn (it used to be tiny). There is no way to claim, let alone prove that all mutations are harmful.--[[User:ChrisF|ChrisF]]
#****'''Counter:''' Seedless watermelons are harmful to the watermelon.
The fact that they may be helpful to people in no way proves that they are helpful for the reproduction of the watermelon
(obviously it's unhelpful). --[[User:Me4real|Me4real]] 13:31, 12 March 2007 (EDT)
NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.
NATURAL genetic changes can only account for diversity within a species. Mendellian genetics has demonstrated the existence of a closed field of genetic changes which can occur through the reproductive process.