Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

I've noticed a repeating theme from many ToEers, implying that YECers who believe in a Noah's Ark and Universal flood are necessitating hypermacroevolution, (a rate of evolution beyond that which is claimed by the ToE itself) which is found to be ironic since the same YECers would deny the possibility of macro-evolution in the first place...I would like to point out that what would actually be required under a flood/ark framework is hypermicroevolution - a distinction which is vital to recognize.Why is this distinction important? Because the two concepts are diametrically opposed.Macroevolution suggests increase in complexity..such as the derivation of multicellularity from unicellularity..Microevolution, on the other hand, simply refers to the diversification of a population due to variation of the genetic material (caused by recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly (although I have my doubts) mutations)...While Macroevolution claims the greatest potential for change, microevolution is the necessary mechanism in the case of the flood. Why so? Because if all of the kinds were present on the ark, the amount of variation necessary to result in today's species is relatively little, and well within the observed range of variation for a species, as I will show..Genetic diversification of a population has been observed and studied extensively through the pratice of artificial selection and breeding. The amount of diversification achieved, for example, in the canis genus or further up the canine family, is remarkable yet similarity of body plan is evident.The variation seen among the canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog) due to domestic breeding, while not perfectly analagous to the level of variation that would mark the diversification of the flood "kind" to the descendant species today, is nonetheless indicative of both the degree of variation inherent in higher order species (an ancestral or taxonomically higher animal) and the rapidity with which such variation can occur.I mentioned that the variation seen within the dog species is not perfectly analagous to required flood scenario because the "kinds" that were on the ark, would likely be placed around, if not right at, the family level. Thus the descent from the kinds represents more variation and diversification than that currently seen in domestic breeding programs...
This notwithstanding, studying the effects of artificial selection is useful for the aforementioned applications..So in sum, diversification (that is the potential diversification) of each Ark "kind" is supported by evidence from breeding - even if current breeding programs have only so far dealt with the species level.What about timeframe? The diversification caused by artificial selection is seen to occur very rapidly - within the timeframe of a few generations. Certainly, the level of diversification required under the Flood "kind" scenario is greater than that of the species level, and therefore would require greater time. Again, the evidence from breeding suggests that such diversification from the "kind" to the species we see today, is very possible within a 5k - 6k timeframe...

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

one thing that I'venoticed about your definition of macro evolution.it's not the standard one, which, if and when used by science, means evolution of a new genus, family, order, class, etc.micro is interspecie evolution. macro is outerspecie evolution.not the evolution of new organs, or new body plans suddenly.why is that you use this definition, instead of the standard?I must commend you for defining kind though. most, if not all creationists I've heard refuse to give it a good defintion.at least you state that you consider kind to be right at family. If below, that makes genus. If above, that makes order. I'll do a check later as to how many different families there are in existence right now--after all, there shouldn't be any new ones since the ark, right? so that would give you the number of kinds on the ark.but for now, I really want to know why you use your defintion of macro over the standard.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Actually, you still yet have to explain how the undefined 'kinds' became the well over a million different species of animals and plants in 4500 or so years. The suggestion that Noah's decendents engaged in some kind of selective breeding program starting with an extremely limited parent population is at least as absurd as any 'super-hyper-califagilistic-macroevolution.'Calling hyper-macroevolution hyper-miroevolution and then saying this makes all the difference is like saying changing the characterization of Pluto from a planet to a dwarf planet somehow changes the physical properties of Pluto.You still have each and every problem with the Noah's Ark myth calling any subsequent diversity of life microevolution as you do with calling it macroevolution.Edited by anglagard, : added subsequentEdited by anglagard, : speling

From which of the kinds on Noah's ark, do you suppose that the following animals evolved:

kangaroo

platypus

koala

panda

sloth

komodo dragon

floresta defines kind--family.along the lines of "if not family then close to it"which leaves genus and order.the most defined I've seen it yet.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

here's the list of families in the Anura order, part of the amphibia classAscaphidae
Bombinatoridae
Discoglossidae
Leiopelmatidae
Megophryidae
Pelobatidae
Pelodytidae
Pipidae
Rhinophrynidae
Scaphiopodidae
Allophrynidae
Arthroleptidae
Brachycephalidae
Bufonidae
Centrolenidae
Dendrobatidae
Heleophrynidae
Hemisotidae
Hylidae
Hyperoliidae
Leptodactylidae
Mantellidae
Microhylidae
Myobatrachidae
Nasikabatrachidae
Ranidae
Rhacophoridae
Rhinodermatidae
Sooglossidae31 families of toads and frogsalso from amphibia, the Urodela (cuadata)(salamanders)
Cryptobranchidae
Hynobiidae
Ambystomatidae
Amphiumidae
Dicamptodontidae
Plethodontidae
Proteidae
Rhyacotritonidae
Salamandridae
Sirenidaethat's 10 families of salamanders
41 so far. and we're not yet out of the amphibia class.I couldn't find any comprehensive lists of families in any kingdom, and while trying to search, came across these wikipedia entries.for the salamanders
Caudata - Wikipedia
for the toads and frogs
Anura - Wikipedia(family_list)my guess is if you look for a common class, like reptilia, mammalia, amphibia, (birds), (fish) you can find your way to a list of the families in each.so now, noah's taking care of at least 82 amphibians (two of each kind), which are today now roughly 5800 different species.I'll dig up some more later.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Your ruminations are sinfuful

quote:

---

floresta defines kind--family.

---

OK, I was thinking more in terms of historically undefined but that being the case, lets go ahead and examine how such familiy archtypes, with such limited genetic potential, can turn into all species observed today.One would of course have to explain how such archtypes evolved so quickly between 4500 and 2500 years ago that no one from the Greek, Roman, Chinese, Hindu, Inca, Olmec, or any other civilization commented on their advanced selective breeding programs they so unselfishly devoted to all life on Earth.

Isn't there supposedly some amazing number of new species that crop up every year? What is that number?

Yes, but was the species there prior to the discovery, or did it only poof into existance just before it was described?I think the apparently hidden assumption that humans categorized all species several hundred years ago and that therefore any newly discovered species must have evolved since then is absurdly erroneous.ABE - This response is based upon my interpretation of what was implied by new species being discovered somehow also implied that all such species evolved in the interim in some kind of hyper-macro-micro evolutionary process. This is not meant to imply that no such species could have evolved in the interim, just that the vast majority were already there awaiting discovery as even today humans have not described all species on the planet.Edited by anglagard, : clarityEdited by anglagard, : Preemptive strike against misinterpretation of meaning.

Good question. And for a change something that can't be blamed on creationists since we aren't the ones out there identifying new species.Oh well, so much for that line of thought.

Your distinction between Macroevolution and Microevolution makes no sence to me.you define Macroevolution as anything capable of increasing complexity.But then you went ahead and cited recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly mutations as examples of Microevolution.Since all these processes seem perfectly capable of leading to increased complexity, it would appear that your definitions are not consistent. Could you please explain?

I've got a little time so I'll try to get to all the questions posed in my absence..bear with me please. Recombination, genetic drift, and chromosomal translocations, all simply involve the rearrangement of the existing genome - nothing new is introduced. Mutations may indeed add complexity, but i'm dubious on that point...The point being that diverisification of a species (by any of the above mechanisms, excepting maybe mutations) is by defintition a sorting of the genetic material - that is a loss not a gain. To clarify, I am refering to the amount of information present in a population, since of course, all individuals of a population possess practically the same level of information, manifested in different alleles.

Do you ever plan to provide a meaningful way of measuring that?TTFN,WK