Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

I use the terms micro and macro evolution to refer to the direction of evolution.Upward evolution refers to the overall increase of complexity proposed as the mechanism for the descent of all modern organisms from an original unicellular organism.By downward evolution I mean the generational variation of an existing population's genome (unaffected, if it could be supposed, by additions of information as caused by polyploidy, inserts, ecc)Upward evolution (macro) may require millions of years of mutations to provide discernible changeDownward evolution (micro) has been evidenced to occur (artificial selection) significantly in a short time period (hundreds of years or less)Note that I did not definitively define "kind"I can not say for certain that "kind" correlates to "family". It may be higher or lower, depending on the kind. Fitting kind into current taxonomic classifications may not be possible. Taxonomy is an arbitrary classification, it should be noted.Placing the "kind" within current taxonomy is not relevant to this post, in any regard. The point is that, wherever the kind fits on the taxonomic scheme, the Ark "kind" would have merely had to undergo a proccess that has been observed to occur today in a short period of time..

In terms of a population, it would be something like the number of genes common to that species * the number of alleles of each common gene...Edited by mjfloresta, : edited to include quote

I can see a "dog-kind" pair on the ark "microevolving" into all the dog breeds we see today.
No problem with that.What about elephants? Do you propose an "elephant-kind" pair on the ark which "microevolved" into African and Indian elephants?What about horses? Do you propose a "horse-kind" pair on the ark that "microevolved" into horses, donkeys, zebras, etc?What about cats? Do you propose a "cat-kind" pair on the ark that "microevolved" into lions, tigers, leopards, housecats, etc?If so, your "hundreds of years or less" timescale seems a trifle scant.

The hundreds of years or so was in reference to artificial selection especially refering to dog breeding. It's not a scant timescale - it's an observed one. Descent from the higher level "kind" would logically require more time than the hundreds of years required for the variation seen in the dog breed. No argument there. The point is, timescale aside, tremendous variation is clearly inherent in the dog population - no addition to the gene pool required - just normal recombination, and sorting.

Yes, I would propose that the dog, elephant, horse, and cat each had their own "kind".

So, how much time?The whole rationale behind the invention of "hyperevolution" - whether "micro" or "macro" - was to jam the changes into the 4500-odd-year timescale. All you've said is that dog breeds can proliferate on that timescale. You've done nothing to show that the other "kinds" could do the same.Edited by Ringo, : Punktuation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Darwin observed the most minute variation (finch beak sizes) and extrapolated that into the Grand old ToE;I've proposed a mechanism of variety (microevolution) which is confirmed by observation (breeding, artificial selection). There is a genetic basis for variation of a population. We've observed it in dog breeding and natural speciation events between which the divergent populations no longer choose to breed..Was Darwin being unscientific when he extrapolated his ToE from the minute (in the grand evolutionary tree sense) variations he observed in the finches?

Are you saying that lions and housecats came from the same primordial archtype in less than 1500 years? I think the Romans had visual representations of each 2000 years ago showing such superhypermicroevolution had already suceeded in seperating the two species quite markedly. Also, didn't the Egyptians not only visually represent but also mummify cats, indicating that the archtype cat would have been much closer to the common housecat?Are you saying evoution is wrong because dogs don't give birth to cats and your model is correct because it has cats giving birth to lions within a few hundred years, if that?Also, strange that the Egyptians, Chinese, and Incas did not record this hypermicroevolution model in action.Am also puzzled about who was in charge of the selective breeding program? Was it a hands-on deity guiding such artificial selection or was it the university animal husbandry programs and genetic engineering laboratories of the same Egyptians, Chinese, and Incas? And if it was a hands-on deity artificial selection program wouldn't that automatically make it natural selection, albiet speeded up to the point where cats give birth to lions?

I'm not sure why people are caught up on this "selective breeding" model thing..
I'm not advocating that Noah or anyone else engaged in a massive selective breeding program at all;What I've said, is that there is a mechanism which would've allowed for the diversification of the kinds into the species we see today. This says nothing about a selective breeding program. The necessary mechanism is there, that's the point. Whether the selection was natural or artificial is irelevant to the point.

Actually we have Egyptian art that depicts both the housecat and the lion going back to at last 2000BCE. That means that if the alleged flood for which there is no evidence happened about 4500 years ago, all of the evolution from some cat kind into Lions and Tigers and Kitties Oh My had to happen in about 500 years.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

The operative word there is "minute".Yes, we can observe the change from "dog-kind" to poodle or Dalmatian in a few hundred years. That's because the difference between a poodle and a Dalmatian is minute.The difference between a lion and a housecat is more significant. We don't see people breeding "cat-kind" into lion, tiger, etc. in a few hundred years, do we?The minuteness of the generation-to-generation changes requires many many generations for many variations (i.e. species) to appear. If you try to jam all the changes into a few generations, you are proposing much larger changes than Darwin ever imagined.So, where's the evidence for the "macro" changes needed for your "micro"evolution?Edited by Ringo, : Spellin.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK point taken. Don't you realize that you have a remarkable opportunity to show your hypothesis is correct? Just turn a housecat into a lion within the allotted timeframe. Surely AIG and or ICR would jump at this opportunity. In fact, you should be working on your proposal right now.Edited by anglagard, : speling

I have argued the same thing as mjfloresta is arguing, that all cats came from one. I do, however, consider it possible that there was more than one representative of the cat kind on the ark, perhaps because the previous 1500 or so years from Adam had already differentiated the original kind into new species that couldn't interbreed. This is a possibility I think, but even in Noah's time there may still have been enough genetic potential from one representative cat to produce all that we now see. But at least the original cat kind in Adam's time certainly had the genetic capacity for all known cats to descend from it, from lions and sabre-toothed tigers to today's housecat. It's a matter of the capacity of the genome, nothing else.As for the deification of cats in Egypt I haven't been able to find out just what type or how large a cat we are talking about. One site I found, that wouldn't let me copy from it, mentioned a picture of a priest bowing before "a very large cat" adorned with jewelry, but not apparently a lion or tiger; and another site mentioned the lynx. Possibly not a typical little housecat tabby in any case.

The genome is decreased in allelic potentials with each new speciation event. The original cat had enormous potential for the breeding of everything now seen; but today's cats are the end product of the playing out of those potentials, and their potentials, while still apparently large enough to produce new varieties, are greatly reduced from the original.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Evidence for that assertion is found where Faith? You need to provide some genetic support for that.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion