Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

minute in what sense? genetically? or morphologically? because if genetically, i've looked but I can't find any studies that compare the two breeds genomes...Morphologically, the two breeds display considerable differences (not to mention temperament and traits), certainly more than Darwin's finches which started it all... Nor would you expect to.. It is oft-claimed that Creationists misrepresent ToE by saying that man descended from the ape - when in fact ToE claims that both are descended from a common ancestor - both are "descendants" on the tree of life; Same thing here, under this paradigm, domestic cats and lions are both "tips" of a branch - neither one is ancestral to the other nor would you expect to be able to derive one from the other.. Once again, breeding has shown this to be untrue; variations do in fact appear as the result of extremely few generations - i'd have to consult a dog breeder to tell you how few, but certainly within a short period of time..

Exactly

I'm curious: It sounds like you're saying the supposed hyperevolution started in Adam's time and continued through Noah's time, tapering off to almost nothing in the present?If so, it sounds like an exponential decrease in "potential" rather than a linear one. Wouldn't most of the changes already have occured by Noah's time - i.e. wouldn't there still have been waaaay too many animals to fit on the ark?

---

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

Once again, the difference between a lion and a housecat is much greater than the difference between a poodle and a Dalmatian. Therefore, many more generations would be required.If I can walk to the corner store, I can walk to New York - but it is thousands of times farther to New York. Of necessity, my steps must be larger or there must be more of them.You are proposing that I walk to New York in the same time I can walk to the corner store. Either my legs must move impossibly fast or they must take impossibly large steps.

---

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

It isn't even nothing in the present though, except for the cheetah. But none of this is hyper-anything. It is as mjfloresta has been arguing, simply the playing out of the genome; and the model of the rapidity of great change brought about in domestic breeding demonstrates that there needn't be anything but genetics as usual going on, nothing hyper. No, because the genome would still have been huge by comparison with today's. At most I would suppose there might have been two, possibly three cats on the ark. I do think one might have been enough even in Noah's time, however, because of the stupendous original genetic richness. But all this is guesswork. I wouldn't know how to begin to make the necessary calculations.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Not if there were a great many allelic possibilities for the different sizes in the original genome. The housecat and the lion are not necessarily from the same branch, as mjf has said. One set of offspring went the housecat direction, another went the lion direction.

Once again I'm confused as to your sources. How do you know the difference between a lion and housecat is "much greater" than that between a poodle and Dalmatian? Genetics? Morphology? And if you are right, then I grant you that more generations would be required. But we've already established that intra-special variation (such as seen between dog breeds) does not require many generations at all..Would common ancestor to lion or common ancestor to house-cat (a descent from perhaps the family level to the species level) require more generations? sure., of course..
But the implication is that such variation could occur in as few as hundreds of generations or less... If you're going to use analogies, I request that they accurately represent what I have said.
I said nothing about the "descent from kind to species" requiring the same amount of time as the "descent of dog breeds among the dog species"...That is your claim..On the contrary, I have repeatedly stated that greater variation would logically require more generations...

You miss my point. Or did I throw it in the wrong direction? If each "kind" started out with a huge overstuffed genome, the proliferation of species should have been greater before Noah than it was after. I'm guessing at least 80% of the present species would have already existed in Noah's time.

---

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

And where is the evidence that supports this alleged huge genome?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

OK, there is some confusion here. And I'm going to take back my thought that there might have been more than one cat on the ark. Nope, just one, or that is, two. From which came all cats we know today.What would have happened is, yes, there would have been many varieties of cats from Adam to Noah, just as there would have been many varieties of everything else, and that would include human beings. Just as humanity was focused through the bottleneck of Noah and his family, losing who knows how many genetic lines that preceded that time, so also the cat kind and all other kinds were focused through the bottleneck of whatever representative was on the ark. That means that many varieties of cat from Adam to Noah were lost to posterity, many alleles for interesting variations lost that is. The happenstance of the preservation of the sabre-toothed tiger demonstrates one direction that enormous variety took.So, you've worded this wrongly when you say that "at least 80% of the present species would have already existed in Noah's time." It's more like some great percentage of all species existed in Noah's time and a great deal was lost to the lines that came down to the present. I wouldn't take a guess at the percentage myself. However, the genome being so large and all that, alleles for many of the same developments could easily still have been present in the genome of whatever cat type was on the ark. .Edited by Faith, : Had to change 7 to 2 as cats are unclean animals

That's what I suspect occured as well...

Strange such great change, if so normal, has been unobserved in historic times outside of human-induced selective breeding.

I appreciate your arguments and am glad to support them. You have a somewhat different angle than mine, a better grasp of the scientific terminology for sure, but we seem to be working the same territory and two heads are better than one.

Well, my first clue was that lions and housecats can't interbreed, lions and tigers produce infertile hybrids, etc. Which is irrelevant, since lions and housecats and tigers are not just different breeds. Again, there is no such "implication" - only your assertion. You didn't have to say it. It's inherent in your argument.There is only a fixed amount of time available for your scenario - from the time of the flood until the present. Generations do happen at a more-or-less fixed rate for each species. There are only so many generations for your scenario to occur.Edited by Ringo, : Re-prepositioning.

---

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

What sort of evidence would you expect to see? It is only in relatively recent times that naturalists came into being, and for most of the history of the world human beings have been isolated from each other and the animals in their vicinity either deified or mythified or at least not naturalistically described.