|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
rjfloresta writes:
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... I appreciate that. I didn't expect that you had, and I know everyone here is going to keep you busy. It just seemed I should be able to predict it. If 'kind' operates at the 'Family' level, then one pair of ancestors covers all the equids. That could even help with some space issues on the ark, because a dawn horse (Hyracotherium) would be much more compact than a modern horse (Equus). But this would mean that all those varieties I mentioned, and many more, evolved after the Flood and subsequently went extinct. I wondered if I should understand the extinct equids as pre-dating the Flood. Either chronological placement raises issues. . Edited by Archer Opterix, : Typo repair. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 6024 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
How do you know the difference between a lion and housecat is "much greater" than that between a poodle and Dalmatian? Genetics? Morphology? 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. But species is merely a taxonomic distinction; Does belong to the same species (taxonomically assigned) necessitate less difference (actual, genetic difference) than between different species of the same genera? I'm merely playing Devil's Advocate, as I would agree that there is greater distinction between species than among...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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? Why does it matter? Whatever it is, either it or an ancestor was on the ark.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
No KIND became extinct if that is what you mean? Just as humankind went on after the Flood, so did all animal kinds go on after the Flood; but just as humankind only went on from the genes in Noah's family, so did the animals go on from those in their ancestors on the ark. CERTAINLY whole branches of the human race became extinct in the Flood; likewise animal branches. What's the problem?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 6024 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
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? You raise to good points that I've wanted to address amid the flurry of this post; 1. The first point is in regard to the various species you've listed; I assume you raise these examples because they are taxonomically rather distinct - little islands unto themselves...Therefore where do they fit in? I think it's likely that there are many kinds that are poorly represented today: The fossil record indicates a tremendous amount of extinction; Therfore, the examples you have raised likely are the lone representatives of their kind. 2. As far as a definition of kind; I have previously stated that taxonomy is insufficient to define the kind. And current genetics is as well. It is my hope that advances in genetics will provide the answer; For the meantime, I believe that ability to hybridize and produce viable offspring (naturally or artificially) would be a good measuring stick.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Why does it matter? Whatever it is, either it or an ancestor was on the ark. ABE - Off topic response Edited by anglagard, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
I think it's likely that there are many kinds that are poorly represented today: The fossil record indicates a tremendous amount of extinction; Therfore, the examples you have raised likely are the lone representatives of their kind. Yes!!
2. As far as a definition of kind; I have previously stated that taxonomy is insufficient to define the kind. And current genetics is as well. It is my hope that advances in genetics will provide the answer; For the meantime, I believe that ability to hybridize and produce viable offspring (naturally or artificially) would be a good measuring stick. I agree about taxonomy and current genetics, but I don't get what you are saying about hybridization and viable offspring as indicators of a kind. Seems to me pretty obvious that some members of the same kind are no longer able to interbreed.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: CERTAINLY whole branches of the human race became extinct in the Flood; likewise animal branches. What's the problem? So why was there hyperevolution after the flood for all the "kinds" except humans? The "whole branches" of the human race were still human. But the "animal branches" that you so deftly handwave away were not anything that survives today, were they? The "problem" is that your scenario involves wiping out vast numbers of creatures - and nothing like them would ever exist again. That is nothing like what the Bible says. Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
kind neen not have a genetic basis.
Linneus's system was created before genetics--we still use it.funny thing is, genetics can show relatedness. why else do we use genetics to determine the father?or if two poeple are in fact related. carry that same principle over to species. the really funny thing, is if we classify just be relatedness, we get almost the same tree of life in the classification system based off of morphology. so yeah, there is a scientific basis for relatedness. Otherwise, how could genetics tell you who your father or mother was (if you didn't grow up with your biological parents)? All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
Because at species or genus level, and probably even family, the dimensions of the ark as given in the Bible is too small to work, therefore the story is parable instead of 100% literal. Funny how you guys take your wild guesses as gospel truth.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
so kind is species?
becuase that whole hybridize and make viable offspring is really, really close to the biological concept for species. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 443 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
kuresu writes: so kind is species? Just between you and me, I think Biblically "kind" is more like "breed" or "variety".If God told Noah to take two of each "kind" of cattle, He undoubtedly meant milk cows and beef cows as different "kinds". Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. But that does not follow from what has been said. For one thing I've denied the term "hyper" so attributing that to me is false. I've already said that the genome is no longer as rich in potentials as it used to be for probably all species. What we see now is much slowed down from previous evolution rates. Nevertheless, certainly speciation continues, and a devotee of the ToE ought to know that as well as I do. Many examples have been given on this forum. The phenomenon of "ring species" for instance has come up a few times -- clear changes in a number of different populations from an original population in a short period of time caused by geographic isolation. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5063 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
In general, by the determinate concept Kant relates (at bottom of second page)to trees (earlier)not grass.
quote: I started trying in encompass the reflection necessary to retain this elsewhere on EVC.EvC Forum: Mutation and its role in evolution: A beginners guide There is a SPACE, that the plants regrow across (if not incompatible) whereat Kant identifies a two directional cause and effect. Rationalizing this indicates a topology that goes undiscussed.So, in response to Faith above, how far this is related to hybridization requires a detailed response to Wise's Barimonology Group. I have not tried to elucidate these relations. It is hard to work out how the space is torqued by just looking at DNA and hybrids as they do but some work could probably go in this direction. Edited by Brad McFall, : page copy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
So why was there hyperevolution after the flood for all the "kinds" except humans? But there was. There is pretty great variation in "races" throughout the world just from Noah's family.
The "whole branches" of the human race were still human. But the "animal branches" that you so deftly handwave away were not anything that survives today, were they? I think you must be confusing a few things here. I was talking about branches of humanity as well as animals that died in the flood. Humans still exist, and so do representatives of all the animals that died in the flood. Of course they survive today. Cats today are still cats etc.
The "problem" is that your scenario involves wiping out vast numbers of creatures - and nothing like them would ever exist again. That is nothing like what the Bible says. It follows from what we know of genetics that if bazillions of individuals of every species died in the Flood, then whole branches of variations were wiped out. Not kinds, but "races" if you will. And yes, it is very possible that nothing like them would ever exist again. OR, as I also said, it is possible that there was still so much genetic potential in the genome in Noah's day that alleles for much of what died in the Flood did get expressed in further variations after the FLood. But obvfiously some didn't. The sabre-toothed tiger never came back. The dinosaurs never came back. Archaeopteryx hasn't been back. Many things in the fossil record are absolutely extinct. Yet modern relatives of most of them continue to exist.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024