DNA + Microevolution+ Bayes =Macroevolution

[hasugopher]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
This approach has been considered.

Some German guy wrote in a book that perhaps "The first bird hatched out of a reptile egg"

The obvious answer to this would be: what did that first bird mate with in order to sustain the new kind of animal?

Same concept applies to your theory.

[/ QUOTE ]


LOL. Welcome back. The first bird never existed. Does that help?

[/ QUOTE ]

Why focus on the details of my comment when they have no relevance to the overall point?

When these massive changes in genetic make-up occured to create new kinds of animals, how did they reproduce?

That would have required the same freak evolutionary accident to not only happen twice at the same time, but in the same general geographics, and the recipients of the new genome would have had to be male and female respectively. (Unless the new creature was self-reproductive, but how many of those exist today?)

While I realize that having a 1^548761184623214782:1 chance of happening is still a CHANCE... at what point do you decide that it just didn't work that way?

[/ QUOTE ]
Just so you know, regardless of how many times you multiply (1) by itself, you still get (1).

You're welcome.