Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

population of biblical creationists--large enough to support a nationwide movement to remove evolution from the science classpercentage of any population with aptitude for science--depends on quality of science education. in the direction you want to move it, it'll decrease.percentage of geologists in interesting research jobs--quite a few. The gov't does pay competive rates (comparable to private industry) at the USGS. and most scientists are out there for the interesting research jobs--not to make a buck. Those are the sell outs, or the engineers (who are not sell outs). You can support your familiy working for the USGS. Hell, if my mom can do it working at the library, I'm sure a geologist could working at a University.The money to recruit geologists--varies. USGS-taxes. Private--well, rising gas costs, anyone?working within evolutionary paradigm--most of geology is unconcerned with evolution. Geophysics, searching for oil, how minerals form, how sediments form, how volcanoes work (such as yellowstone).Researching the flood shouldn't be a problem in today's world, if not for the fact that the eighteenth century geologists debunked the global flood.That's why I posed my question. Because the geology doesn't line up with the flood, so any who went to school to become a geologist and believed in the flood either stopped believing, or gave up geology.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Sure, socially and politically motivated Christians, plenty of those. It's not many in numbers nevertheless. And the science-minded are going to be a much smaller group. I'm talking about people learning SCIENCE, apart from evo or creo theory, LIKING science, being attracted to science, being attracted to it enough to make a career out of it. It's always only a small percentage. And then going for a particular science such as geology or genetics narrows the field further. I was talking about the money to recruit creationist geologists to the research on flood deposits that Archer Op recommended we do. I don't think the US government is going to fund that kind of work.And yes, there is going to be some attrition as creationists of weak faith and training get seduced to evolutionism.All this reduces the number of creationist scientists available for the kind of work recommended by Archie O.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

right--why do pointless research. after all, how does it increase national security? (poking fun at today's political focus--all on security)you know, as threatened as you all feel by evolution, it shouldn't be difficult to raise the money to do it--you're great at doing it for mission trips, right? well, this is a different mission trip, one designed to try to save the souls of the seemingly hopelessly lost evilutionists.An interest in science has to develop early, and the reason it is so small is becuase we don't teach it in an engaging way. We don't make science exiting enough in elementary schools and middle schools. Studies have shown that if a kid doesn't want to become a scientist by the eight grade, he most likely won't. So that means we need to improve our science education.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I would like to address a few statements that were addressed to me after a short absence from this thread..First, the notion that I've constrained the Flood "kind" to the species level by my definition of insemination is ridiculous, and I'll ask one more time that people would pay more attention to what I've said before misrepresenting my proposals;The criteria that I laid out for the biblical kind is that insemination of an organism by another signifies relatedness; Not that the organisms must interbreed, but that they could, or more specifically, that they there is the potential to produce offspring by insemination (including artificial)The fact that few studies have been done to observe such events much less to orchestrate them in no way constrains the actual meaning of "kind".Second; My confession that in the absence of observed breeding or insemination, the creationist can not unequivocally affirm the relatedness of two organisms, has been improperly twisted against me. Some have taken what I said and turned it around, claiming that I can not, in the absence of an attempt at insemination or breeding, deny the relatedness of two organisms such as the species belonging to Equid; This is a false assertion.First, it is false because I made the positive assertion, that an insemination event is necessary to prove relatedness; The opposite is not true; Relatedness can not be assumed based on the lack of observing an insemination attempt.Second, it is false because the burden of proof is on those who claim relatedness between two organisms (as it is on those who make any claim). The burden of proof is never on the one who denies a proposition until the proposition has been affirmed positively. My admission in no way can be construed as "positive affirmation" for the claim of relatedness..

here are some animal hybridsSome animal interspecies hybrids are:Mule, a cross of female horse and a male donkey.
Hinny, a cross between a female donkey and a male horse.
A "Zeedonk", a zebra/donkey hybridZeedonk or zonkey, a zebra/donkey cross.
Zorse or zebroid, a zebra/horse cross
Zony/zetland, a zebra/pony cross ("zony" is a generic term; "zetland" is specifically a hybrid of the Shetland pony breed with a zebra)
Dzo, zo or yakow: a cross between a domestic cow/bull and a yak. See also Bovid hybrids.
Beefalo/cattalo, a cross of an American Bison and a domestic cow. This is a fertile breed; this along with genetic evidence has caused them to be recently reclassified into the same genus, Bos. See also Bovid hybrids.
Zubron, a hybrid between Wisent (European Bison) and domestic cow.
Sheep-goat hybrids, such as the The Toast of Botswana.
Ursinae hybrids, such as the Grizzly-polar bear hybrid, occur between black bears, brown bears, Kodiak and polar bears.
Fertile Canid hybrids occur between coyotes, wolves, dingos, jackals and domestic dogs. Dogs and wolves may be considered the same species, making wolfdogs a non-hybrid.
Hybrids between Black & White Rhinos have been recognized.
Hybrids between spotted owls and barred owls
Ligers and Tigons (crosses between a Lion and a Tiger) and other Panthera hybrids such as the Lijagulep. Various other wild cat crosses are known involving the Lynx, Bobcat, Leopard, Serval, etc.
Bengal cat, a cross between the Asian Leopard cat and the domestic cat, one of many hybrids between the domestic cat and wild cat species. The domestic cat, African wild cat and European wildcat may be considered variant populations of the same species (Felis silvestris), making such crosses non-hybrids.
Cama, a cross between a Camel and a Llama, also an intergeneric hybrid.
Wolphin, a fertile but very rare cross between a False Killer Whale and a Bottlenose Dolphin.
A fertile cross between an albino King Snake and an albino Corn Snake.
At Chester Zoo in the United Kingdom, a cross between African elephant (male) and Indian elephant (female). The male calf was named Motty. It died of gut infection after twelve days.
Cagebird breeders sometimes breed hybrids between species of finch, such as Goldfinch x Canary. These birds are known as Mules.
Guin-hen, a hybrid between Chickens & Guineafowl, an interfamilial hybrid.
Pea-guinea, a hybrid between Peafowl & Guineafowl, an interfamilial hybrid.
Hybrids should not be confused with chimaeras such as the chimera between sheep and goat known as the geep.from wiki.
we have from the same genus, from the same family, and from the same order. so far, three possibilities for where kind can go--species, genus, or family.as for plants
Leyland Cypress, a hybrid between Monterey Cypress and Nootka Cypress.
Limequat, lime and kumquat hybrid.
Loganberry, a hybrid between raspberry and blackberry.
London Plane, a hybrid between Oriental plane and American plane (American sycamore).
Peppermint, a hybrid between spearmint and water mint.
Tangelo, a hybrid of a Mandarin orange and a pomelo or a grapefruit which may have been developed in Asia about 3,500 years ago.
Triticale, a wheat-rye hybrid.
Wheat; most modern and ancient wheat breeds are themselves hybrids.from the same wiki page. It seems that plants are all over the place.and then, there's the good old speciation by hybridization, whihc increases genetic variability, and isn't a mutation. (for Faith).so that puts kind at family for you--you don't want it at species, as you've made clear,but around family, and with the ability to inseminate others in the same family, of which there are a couple of examples.as to the lack of insemination can be allow assumption of relatedness--it is not false. why? why not assume they are related? There's nothing preventing the possiblity without any evidence, which is what you claim we don't have (or much of it, at anyrate). So yeah, it does float both ways-up, down, left, right, pitch, and yaw. or, oh, never mind. that's six. stupid boat jokes.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

You can suppose anything you want. A supposition without evidence is impossible to disprove (the falsification concept ToEers are so fond of...) but is worthless as a credible theory for that very reason.You can propose relatedness if you want; The proposal has no value if you can't support it evidentially; That I can't disprove relatedness (the supposition has no falsifiability) in no way supports the opposite.I believe these are logical concepts that none would deny - especially those with a professed interest in the integrity of science..

Apparently a Kind does fit mjf's criteria. Turns out it's pretty intuitive what a Kind is after all. Dogs, cats, horses, cattle etc.Seems to me I recall that some here have objected to classing dingoes with dogs, but if they can be hybridized with jackals and domestic dogs and wolves they are definitely the same Kind. But even the chimera demonstrates relatedness, or belonging to the same Kind. Hybridization does not add anything new, it merely recombines alleles formerly separated by earlier selection and separation processes. if it is "speciation" it is speciation in a different sense than that brought about by those separation processes. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

right, but we do have evidence of relatedness. Even of the type you're looking for. the ability to inseminate and produce offsrping, viable or not, meaning they are related, means that at least all those listed in my previous post are related to the other being mated with.the problem started when you said there was no evidence to support relatedness, so why assume it, when the opposite is true--you can assume it. They both carry the same weight. No weight at all.
You were trying to make a point with the can't assume, when, becuase you can do the opposite, and becuase both cannot be disproven, you can't use them to support your case.you tried. we haven't been. we've been using evidence, that can be disproven. you just haven't found the disprove yet, and in fact I supplied you with proof--of your very own criteria.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I must be misunderstanding something. I thought your list demonstrated a very good start at defining a Kind, based on what mjf had said about hybridization. What are you arguing about?

I'm not sure if you missed it Faith.mjfloresta says that kind is about at family level, and that in order to be of the same kind, then they have to be able to produce offspring. I have a couple examples of two species belonging to the same family, but different genus, producing offspring.and since we know you all reject kind as being species, and since there are too many genus to fit on the ark, family is a better choice.It gives us, finally, a way to compare kind to our classification system.not sure of the point you were trying to make. S/he gave the criteria for what kind would have to be, and now we have an example--for the first time I've known. Kind is family, or possibly order, in comparison.yeah . . .ABE:
oh, and quite obvioulsy, Kind, as she defined it, would meet her criteria, huh (I don't know when or where to use emoticons, they never seem quite appropriate)(the limits of text, )
just like when we define species, it will naturally meet our criteria.Edited by kuresu, : funny statement

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

miscommunication between us two, I suspect.earlier in the thread, mjfloresta made a statment about how we cannot assume relatedness becuase there's no evidence (according to he/her, and you). she was backing her argument with a weightless support. we pointed out that the opposite is also true--if there is no evidence, then you can also assume that they are related. That statement, if used to support something, would also carry no weight.
A dangerous thing to do.yeah, my list was trying to find possiblities of kind.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Do you read my posts? At all? 'cause if you did you would know that I proposed insemination as the test for relatedess. What this means is simple;1. If two organisms are capable of insemination, they are related2. If two organisms are not capable of insemination, they are not related3. In absence of insemination (insemination has not been observed, not that it can't occur) no relatedness can be unequivocally confirmed4. In absence of insemination (insemination has not been observed, not that it can't occur) non-relatedness can not be unequivocally confirmed.This simply means that:For those species that have been confirmed to interbeed (lion and tiger) there is relatedness.For those species that have been confirmed to not have the ability to interbeed, there is not relatednessFor those species that we have no data on whether they can or can't interbreed, we can neither uneqivocally confirm or deny relatedness.Hopefully this clarify things

I know, which is why I found a list of hybrids. to try and meet your criteria, so that kind can finally be defined.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I saw the guess about family level but it didn't read to me as hard and fast, merely as a guess, and he/she also said that the taxonomic system isn't a reliable reference for it, to which I agreed. This is why we usually don't try to guess.But I was intrigued by the idea that hybridization could establish a Kind, and here you come up with a list of hybrids that definitely links together types that one would intuitively link as related, although there hasn't been any clear way to say for sure. If all those cats can interbreed, then all cats are a Kind; if all those canids can interbreed, same. Also donkeys with horses with zebras. All intuitive groupings. Intuitive based on what mjf has called "body plan" -- we know a horse when we see it even if it's two feet tall or fifteen feet tall, has stripes or whatever. All this speculation about what would have fit on the ark is meaningless navel-gazing. If they can interbreed we are on our way to the Kind. Forget the taxonomic system. If they can interbreed we've got a Kind.{EDIT: Oh, about rejecting "species" the problem is a definitional one. We'd be happy to use it except it's been co-opted by the ToE to nefarious other uses.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I think I'm a little confused where you're coming from but I appreciate your efforts...