Summations Only

You could also say that with fundamentalist creationist religions, biology doesn't make sense.Perhaps that's why there are so many confused creationists ...Enjoy

Correct, ALL evolution occurs through microevolution. This is sometimes called microevolution, however this is the process through which all species evolve and all evolution occurs at the breeding population level. Can you define what you think "macroevolution" is?In my experience no creationists get this right.Hint: see AnagenesisEnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Can you define "macroevolution" so we will be talking about the same thing?Creationist literature usually (99%+) gets it wrong, so you may be misinformed.Hint: see AnagenesisEnjoy

First, you need to define "statistically significant amounts of functional information" ... and I suggest that you do that on the Can mutation and selection increase information? thread.Second, that is NOT how macroevolution is defined by evolution scientists (I said you would get it wrong), and your definition is not even usable until you've defined "statistically significant amounts of functional information." Scientists don't use unmeasurable parameters.Third, there is Pelycodus:

quote:

---

A Smooth Fossil Transition: Pelycodus, a primate

​

​

The numbers down the left hand side indicate the depth (in feet) at which each group of fossils was found. As is usual in geology, the diagram gives the data for the deepest (oldest) fossils at the bottom, and the upper (youngest) fossils at the top. The diagram covers about five million years.

​

The numbers across the bottom are a measure of body size. Each horizontal line shows the range of sizes that were found at that depth. The dark part of each line shows the average value, and the standard deviation around the average.

---

I think you will agree that there is "statistically significant" change over time, and that there are fully functional critters from bottom to top -- they keep reproducing new critters. And I think you will agree that there is a "statistically significant" alteration at the top where the population divides into two separate breeding populations.By the Evolution Science definition of "macroevolution" (ie a correct one) this shows "macroevolution" occurring, both Anagenesis and Cladogenesis are seen, plus we see the formation of a clade."Information" ... what do I need that for? What does it add to the observed facts showing "macroevolution" occurring by "microevolution" over time spanning many generations?EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : 'Edited by RAZD, : st

Actually reality is what scientists use to test theories. The reality of genome sequence comparisons validates the theory of evolution, as does every fossil found that continues to fit the spacial-temporal matrix of all the other fossils, leaving a story line in the rocks. Actually evolution is useful in dealing with diseases like flu that evolve every year, being able to predict likely changes to adapt the vaccines sooner for the next flu season.Or diseases like ebola and cholera and so many others.If you don't think this is a practical use, feel free to use last years vaccines. The universe is stranger than you can imagine.Enjoyps - I always though Chico was one of the Marx Brothers ... Edited by RAZD, : st

Sadly no. There is a complete fossil skeleton of one on the website

quote:

---

A complete Pelycodus fossil

​

​

This is a picture of Notharctus venticolus, which is the species in the upper right of the Pelycodus diagram. As the diagram proved, all of the other species (ralstoni, trigonodus, jarrovii, and nunienus) were smaller than this.

​

(In fact, the pictured fossil is a descendant of Notharctus venticolus, but none of the differences are visible here.)

---

So the basic distinction from bottom to top is size ... as far as can be seen from the fossils. In modern monkeys we see close relatives have virtually identical skeletons while having distinctively different fur patterns (see tamarins), and I expect this occurred with Pelycodus as well.Notice that Notharctus nunienus at the top left is about the same size distribution as Pelycodus ralstoni so it is probably re-occupying the ecological niche of Pelycodus ralstoni in the trees, able to forage smaller branches than the larger Notharctus venticolus while Notharctus venticolus may be taking more advantage of their size to dominate on the ground. That could have lead to the sexual isolation that occurred between the two populations.Enjoy

Each layer has size variations, different layers have different distributions of size.
Magically sorted to fake evolution. You forgot that part. There is no such thing as a "later macroevolved generation" as each generation evolves from the last by microevolution.Macroevolution is the accumulation of microevolved traits over many generations, and you have been told this before.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

SnortOnly when you ignore reality, Faith, as usual.Look at that diagram again, and tell me how the Magic Flying Flood sorted those fossils so that each layer had an assortment of sizes overlapping the sizes below them, but shifted towards larger sizes. Why are ALL of the Pelycodus jarrovii fossils larger than ALL of the Pelycodus ralstoni and why are ALL of the Pelycodus trigonodus fossils intermediate, none larger than Pelycodus jarrovii and none smaller than Pelycodus ralstoniHow on earth would a flood do that except by magic, and magic done in order to deceive people.'Splain it LucyEnjoy

Derision. The kind with coffee coming out of your nose because something is ridiculously totally wrong. Yes, we've had this discussion too. It sorts the heaviest densest materials at the bottom and the smallest lightest materials at the top, some taking weeks to deposit out of suspension. What it does not do is repeat layers with different density objects.As I recall I did a rather long post on this regarding the layering of diatoms and silty clay in Lake Suigetsu ...See Message 23 on Great debate: radiocarbon dating, Mindspawn and Coyote/RAZD. If you want to debate this I can start a new thread on it. So all you are doing is hand-waving, not making an argument based on any substance beyond fantasy.Because that is the difference between science and fantasy ... fantasy is an illusion you can't prove. The Magic Flying Flood is fantasy, never happened.Enjoy

There's a hidden admission here that microevolution can add functional information, just that it isn't significant in the population at the time.This leads us rather inevitably to each generation adding a little functional information, so the question becomes when is it significant?For evolutionary biologists, traits are accumulated in each generation, and after a while it becomes significantly different enough from the original population to declare a new species by anagenesis.Enjoy

Why not say billions or trillions of years? You want to make it impossible by definition after all.Biologists measure evolution time in generations rather than years, because different species have different generation time lengths, and evolution is observed from generation to generation -- the population evolves, not the individuals. In some cases that means macroevolution = microevolution + tens of years. See how that changes the possibilities? So you are a Gap Creationist - old earth, young life. Well you can participate on Age Correlations and An Old Earth, Version 2 No 1 then, because the first 35,987 years are based on evidence left by life -- tree rings and diatoms -- and those are fully developed life forms. Only because you arbitrarily defined it that way to fit your opinion first. Which again is only because you false analogy traps your thinking. Evolution is like a drunken walk, it staggers about and ends up in different places. See how that changes the possibilities?Sadly, for you, like opinions, self-serving definitions and analogies don't change reality.Enjoy

Curiously that relationship was useful in finding vaccines for HIV which is a mutated form of SIV:

quote:

---

Chimp link to AIDS pandemic confirmed

​

Research in Cameroon has confirmed what scientists have suspected for some years: that wild chimpanzees are the source of the human HIV/AIDS pandemic.

​

The finding, published today (26 May) in Science, is based on an analysis of chimpanzee faeces found in forests in the south of the country.

​

Researchers led by Beatrice Hahn of the University of Alabama at Birmingham, United States, found evidence of a virus called SIVcpzPtt in the chimpanzee subspecies Pan troglodytes troglodytes. ...

---

Just as understanding the genetic similarities with pigs was useful in finding vaccines for

quote:

---

Swine influenza, also called pig influenza, swine flu, hog flu and pig flu, is an infection caused by any one of several types of swine influenza viruses. Swine influenza virus (SIV) or swine-origin influenza virus (S-OIV) is any strain of the influenza family of viruses that is endemic in pigs.[2] As of 2009, the known SIV strains include influenza C and the subtypes of influenza A known as H1N1, H1N2, H2N1, H3N1, H3N2, and H2N3.

​

The Swine flu was initially seen in humans in Mexico in 2009, where the strand of the particular virus was a marriage of 3 types of strands.[3] Six of the genes are very similar to the H1N2 influenza virus that was found in pigs around 2000.[3]

---

So you'll excuse us if we keep using evolution to make useful predictions.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

Getting to the ark is not a problem (see CRR response), the problem is getting from the ark to the remote places of the earth for all species to end up where they are now.How did all those marsupials end up on Australia with no placental mammals? Why are there NO marsupials on the African, Asian, European continents, including the middle east ... and no fossils of them? There are marsupials in South and North America, but they are few compared to the numbers of placental mammals.This bio-geographic distribution is easily explained by evolution, but is rather difficult for creationists ... so the come up with some amusing explanations. One imagined that Koalas got to Australia on a raft of eucalyptus branches as the flood receded.Enjoy

So magic then. Okay.Carefully herded so that only marsupials ended up in Australia and none strayed to end up in Africa, Europe, Asia.So still not explained, and now you have added wicked fast continental movement with no basis in the bible, so THAT is not explained except by imagination, and no thought to the consequences of this fantasy -- boiled seas and massive tidal waves for which there is NO objective empirical evidence. Stick to the magic explanation, don't try mock reality.Biology makes so much more rational an explanation.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : return to topic

From Antarctica to South America, as did the ones in Australia. The opossum is the only marsupial in North America and it came from South America. I can find no information on this -- can you give link?I can also not find any information on a mouse-like marsupial in Africa.Enjoy