Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

And the evidence for that large genome is found where Faith?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I would have to call that a hideous perversion of what the Bible says.It is clear that no animal became extinct due to the flood.
Your notion of "varieties" becoming extinct is pure fiction.

---

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

Current evidence, as in right now. You are the one arguing that so-called hypermicroevolution is normal, so normal in fact there is nothing hyper about it. If normal, then it should be happening right before our very eyes.

so all that has to happen is for the cat to evolve, and we invalidate your hypothesis.if we can show that they aren't the end product, or for that matter any living thing today is not the end product, we've won the debate for good.something telle me bacteria might be necessary.oh, and:
why do you all have such a hard time defining kind within the current taxonomic levels. you claim the KPCOFGS is arbritary, but so is kind.
as of now, your definition makes it possible for one kind to be at kingdom level and the other to be at species level. Isn't that a litte absurd? How are you supposed to show that evolution is false if you can't come up with a single standard for kind which applies in all cases--as in kind being only family, or order, or whatnot? Until you do that, until you come up with that one defintion, all you have to do to say evolution doesn't happen is to move the kind around. YOu want to debate science--have some concrete defintions ready. ohterwise, you won't get anywhere.I ask you and all other creationists on this board to do one thing:
for once, come up with a standard definiton of kind that is on level with our taxonomic classification. Not "around such and such", not "it's not such and such", but "it is (x)".until then, you all move the goalposts--dishonest, and faulty logic.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

So breeding is the basis for your classification system? Just Curious... It's not irrelevant; it's establishing a timeframe.. This one I'm not answering after this since I've been abundantly clear.
I've explicitly stated that greater variation would necessarily require greater lengths of time. There's nothing inherent in my statements that would contradict the clarity of what I've said.. Fixed amount of time - check; Generations have more-or-less fixed rate for a given species - I'll give you a guarded check on that one, since as Faith has stated, we have very limited naturalistic data since it's a relatively new phenomenon; There are a specific number of generations for the scenario to occur - check; So what's the problem?

I applaud your effort to construct a workable model with precise terms.mjfloresta writes: How do you understand the relationship of the kind 'horse' to creatures like Hyracotherium (Eohippus), Mesohippus, Miohippus, Merycchippus, Pliohippus?All belong to family Equidae.
Equidae - Wikispecies

---

Archer

It is; I can't believe I have to convince an evolutionist of the actuality of speciation events; both paradigms believe in speciation - ToE traces the common ancestor farther back than Creationism does..

Keeping in mind that I haven't studies every species, genus, and family, on earth, I will answer your questions as soon as I can...

so aristotle wouldn't have noticed?after all, he did come up with the first classification system of living organisms, based off of where they lived--land, air, water.he also was most likely not the first naturalist--just the first to see the importance of classification.naturalists, or rather the first biologists in the modern sense, started appearing roughly about the time of the invention of the microscope--mid 1500s, I think.before evolution was discovered by darwin, many important work was done in biology--what is life, what is life made of, and finally, how diseases are caused (only bacterial, though).we have people in history who were meticulous about recording things. and they completely missed all the hyper(macro, micro) evolution? I doubt it.for most of hte history of the cvilized world we've been connected to other parts of the world. unless you want to argue that tobaccoo is native to egypt, too. what about that great library in Alexandria that was burned down--the most massive collection of ancient knowledge anywhere at anytime in history. Collected from all parts of the known world. trouble is, we're not sure just how much of the world was known at that time, but even if it was just around the mediterannean that would include four of the worlds greatest civilizations ever, and all existing in roughly a thousand years together. First the egyptians, then the greeks (who fought the persians) (who was later conquered by the romans, but first conquered egypt), and finally rome.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

mjfloresta asked Ringo: Species, to start with. The poodle and the Dalmation are the same species (Canis lupus familiaris). The lion (Panthera leo)and the house cat (Felis sylvestris catus) are not.

---

Archer

What kind is a Tasmanian Tiger? is it a cat kind or a kangaroo kind? Is a Echidna a hedgehog kind or a bird kind (lays eggs). Is a Tasmainian Devil a Raccoon kind or a Opossum kind? What kind is a platypus? How does one define "kind?" differently than morphologically or genetically? Looks kinda like? Smells kinda like? Fits in a boat kinda like?

so bacteria don't reproduce within an hour?it doesn't take an x amount of time for humans to be sexually mature?
like we could give birth at the age of, three? instead of the safe age of 16 up (older is safer, and I'm not encouraging anyone ot igve birth at 16--why ruin your life? oh, and I'm a guy)we have, now, different generation times? It's highly variable?
bacteria can reproduce at either one minute, or three hours age?horses at birth, or several years later?all those times are possible?no. there are fixed generation ages. you think that the herders didn't know when they could breed their livestock? that would be very important to know.and no, naturalists are not new, just the philosophy of naturalism (which influenced works such as the Red Badge of Courage).the problem, is if you have x generations to do this in, and it takes y to do so, and y is greater than x, you have a problem--what you propose isn't possible unless you do it hyper version, which would've been noticed. and why would the hyper stop just before people like Linneus came up with an even better classification system? what would make it start? can you answer those without a supernatural explanation?keep in mind, not even the ToE advances the idea of hyper evolution, macro or micro. so not only are you supporting evolution to support your YECism, you accelerating it, which means you have to support your position with something you don't support. You say it isn't possible for all this variation to occur in billions of years, but then you turn around and say it is possible in 4500 years. isn't that contradictory, to say the least?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

It isn't exactly "my" classification system. It goes back to Linneaus. It is irrelevant. You can't compare a dog-to-dog timeframe with a cat-kind-to-lion timeframe.You can't use the my-house-to-the-corner-store timeframe to establish a my-house-to-New-York timeframe. And I have explicitly stated that you do not have greater lengths of time. The whole point of your scenario is to jam too many generations into time you do not have. Do the math.Take hypothetical "kind" E. Let's say a generation is ten years. Let's say we have two thousand years after the flood for proliferation to occur. That's two hundred generations. With me so far?Now, what you need to do is show how "kind" E can become species A and species I in two hundred generations.Edited by Ringo, : Alleviated hyphen shortage.

---

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

I don't want to be presumptuous in answering for Faith; But here's my take on it:Faith is not claiming that the cat or any other species has reached "the end" but that they are heading in the direction of less variation..She gave the cheetah as one such drastic example.I agree kind is arbitrary, in reference to taxonomy. But then taxonomy is arbitrary - linking organisms by similarity seems reasonable, but who came up with the axiom - "similarity = relatedness".. It has been infered but never proven. To be fair, both ToE and and creationism are reliant on "assuming" that similarity = relatedness. The ToE assumes relatedness among all life. Creationism assumes that all animals belonging to a "kind" are related. Similar assumptions, one goes further than the other..Do we have a basis for either? Not a scientific one..But someone will object that if not taxonomy, then surely genetics has proven the relatedness of all life; Has it? Genetics has shown us 2 things; All life is based on the same genetic code. And, the similarity of the genome from one organism to another can be quantified. What does that mean?ToE uses genetic similarity to determine the degree of relatedness or less-relatedness; The only question ToE asks is "how related are two organisms". It assumes that the organisms are in fact related. It fails to ask whether genetics can answer the question "are two organisms related?". It fails to ask because it assumes that all life is related. Genetics, however, does not tell us this. not yet anyways..This has implications for Creationism as well; Creationists have no genetic basis for determing the placement of the kind: there is no genetic mechanism for determining whether two organisms are in fact related - or merely appear so (taxonomy, morphology) or share similar building blocks (genetics)..Thus both paradigms are equally unable to assert relatedness based on the current state of morphology or genetics.

Speciation refers to species, not kinds that hypermicroevolve from a commmon ancestor of housecats and lions in less than 500 years. What is the housecat and lion hypermicroevolving into today? Additionally, shouldn't both have been a different closer-to-root species 500 years ago? Why is there no backup from historic writings if evolution happens so fast? Why has there been little to no observable change in the last 50 years, 100 years?Life evolving over 3.5 billion years is one thing, over 4500 years, even as a slice, well that is something entirely different.What is this all about? It's impossible for evolution to be slow so it has to be absurdly and unobservedly fast? IMHO, proposition is utterly without reason or logic.