JerryL
Well-Known Member
"could very well be"? I am describing the differences between a chimp and a human, in the same manner you are describing the differences between other animals, and pointing out that none of those changes would be a "new feature" under your definition.Do you agree that you could very well be describing a human being in what you wrote above? I hope you would say 'yes' because all of the above can happen to a human.
According to how you've defined "macroevolution", a chimp evoloving into a person would be "microevolution".
Actually, we like to look at the DNA strands. In sexually-reproducing creatures, we are particularly fond of midocondrial DNA. We used to evaluate by morphology, but genetic mapping is more accurate.i mean at the scientific level do they merely look at the physical makeup (phenotype) of the creature and compare it with another creature, or is there another thing they use to look at the differences between creatures and why?
But while you started by talking about the genome, you then became obsessed with "new features" and discussed them from a morpological level.