Hey, /sci/, /pol/ here. I have a question about the theory of

>being this dumb
not suprised that youre from /pol/

>>7718081
Fuck off libtard
>>>/reddit/
I just want my question answered by smart people

>>7718051
> /pol/ here.

oh boy...

>school teached me

kek

>My question is "what about MACRO-evolution",

There is no qualitative distinction between "micro" and "macro." What some call macro is simply micro on a longer time scale. Thus your "for example" is not really an example of anything, but just a specific question.

>for example, how a specie can increase its number of chromosome ? An organism with this mutation, with one chromosome more, would be sterile, no ?

In most cases yes, but not always. Fusing or splitting a chromosome actually has very little effect on the genes themselves.

>>7718051
The thing to remember is how DNA actually works while building an organism. There is no "build an arm" DNA strand. It is a top down process working in parallel using promoters and other intervene communication systems. Look up hox genes. The basic idea is a small change at the top of the chain leads to large changes at the bottom.

>>7718097
But what about race differences?

every race has different genes.
Blacks micro evolved the dark skin gene
Whites dont have that gene

etc etc

>>7718298
So are you looking for an answer supporting young earth creationism, or for an answer supporting racialism? I need to know so that I can tell you what you want to hear so you can go back to /pol/.

>>7718317
I want an answer that is the TRUTH

>>7718699
The truth is there is no difference between macro and micro.

Why is the pigmentation phenotype "micro" and not "macro".
Its because they are the same thing.
Chromosomes are just made up of proteins called chromatin, that folds a bunch of DNA in a way to save space in the nucleosome.
So differences in Chromosomes (which is what you dictate as macro evolution) are actually just differences in the expressed DNA (which is "micro" evolution).

That is why evolution can not be dictated as "micro" or "macro", because the two are literally the same thing

>>7718051
>how a specie can increase its number of chromosome ?
Literally retarded. Not even joking.

People with Down's Syndrome don't have the typical number of chromosomes, but they still live.

A change of the number of chromosomes is a single mutation, and it can be viable and fertile, and it can result in fast speciation.

Down's syndrome women can have children. Down's syndrome is trisomy 21 i.e. chromosome 21 has a third copy.

Imagine if that chromosome imparted something useful like better language skills or an extra set of arms!

Unfortunately it makes people retarded but you must see what I'm getting at.

>>7718051
>for example, how a specie can increase its number of chromosome?
Idk anon, how did you do it? :^)

>>7718051

Obvious plant thread to make /pol/ look like they are seventh grade retarded. /pol/ is only high school retarded.

>>7718051
errors in the replication process can lead to increases in chromosome numbers although the centrosome is liable to stop or hinder progression of this

however highly evolved plants ( any modern post-vascularized ones ) can get inseminated by higher numbers of chromosmes which lead to hybrid super ( higher than either organism they came from ) chromsome genomes.

look up homeobox genes if you want an example of gene duplications which are a smaller scale error process

or translocations

or dicer mutations

all interesting, and there are more regulatory processes that implicate themselves in genome alterations every FUCKING YEAR
cause its complex, like the magazine

>>7718085
Yep. You're fucking retarded.