Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

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.

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...

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.

Many speciated populations no longer do interbreed; It doesn't necessarily follow that they can't. I haven't drawn a fine line on this myself. As of now, I think that if the sperm of one individual can fertilize the egg of another individual, those individuals would be related and of the same kind.Unfortunately, hybridization experiments are uncommon and accurate data even rarer..

I'm not at all sure what you mean by "same type sequence" in every critter; Could you explain?

Duplicate threadEdited by mjfloresta, : Duplicate thread

Not that this pertains to the topic all that well, but nearly every civilization on earth records a flood 'mythology'..So how exactly is it, in your words "unnoticed"? Far from going unnoticed, it is universally attested to.Please explain this genetic marker or signature that you're looking for...

Once again, you misrepresent me; I clearly stated that I don't believe we have a current mechanism for determing relatedness: IF we ASSUME relatedness, then taxonomy, or genetics can tell us the degree of relatedness. This is true of Common Ancestry as it pertains to ToE, as well as paternity testing. The difference is, ToE assumes relation, and uses taxonomy and genetics to quantify the degree of relatedness. Paternity testing equally relies on the assumption that humans are related.Consider the assurance given by the PTC (paternity testing corporation - http://www.ptclabs.com/reliability.htm): Notice the proliferation of "could be", "could have received", "probability", and other qualifiers.Are all humans related? maybe, maybe not;Suppose that at the dawn of life, there were two separate life from non-life events; Suppose that in both cases, life arose on the same four base DNA pattern;If descendant's of both primordial soup's were alive today, would you be able to determine what descendants belonged to which original population? You would not. All life would SEEM to be inter-related, to one degree or another, but it would be an appearance, not a reality...

I've never taken it down to the species level; everyone else has; I suspect the kind to be around the family level (within the constraints that i've mentioned repeatedly in this thread)However, I proposed a method of elucidating what organisms pertain to what kind; that method or criteria is to determine whether insemination is possible between organisms. Such insemination, under my model, infers relatedness..I've also previously mentioned that hybridization experiments are rare. We have very little detail; So unless you've done such experiments or have seen the results of such, you have no basis for lowering the "kind" to the species level.That goes for each of the genus levels of equids you've listed; In the absence of such experiments between these genera, you can't factually determine that they can't inseminate, thus that they aren't of the same kind..

You are correct; the opposite is equally true; in the absence of confirming tests, we cannot definitively state that the many horse genera are related..

Thanks for all your work, it's appreciated;Yes, fish would be unnecessaryEdited by mjfloresta, : No reason given.

I would like to address a few statements that were addressed to me after a short absence from this thread..First, the notion that I've constrained the Flood "kind" to the species level by my definition of insemination is ridiculous, and I'll ask one more time that people would pay more attention to what I've said before misrepresenting my proposals;The criteria that I laid out for the biblical kind is that insemination of an organism by another signifies relatedness; Not that the organisms must interbreed, but that they could, or more specifically, that they there is the potential to produce offspring by insemination (including artificial)The fact that few studies have been done to observe such events much less to orchestrate them in no way constrains the actual meaning of "kind".Second; My confession that in the absence of observed breeding or insemination, the creationist can not unequivocally affirm the relatedness of two organisms, has been improperly twisted against me. Some have taken what I said and turned it around, claiming that I can not, in the absence of an attempt at insemination or breeding, deny the relatedness of two organisms such as the species belonging to Equid; This is a false assertion.First, it is false because I made the positive assertion, that an insemination event is necessary to prove relatedness; The opposite is not true; Relatedness can not be assumed based on the lack of observing an insemination attempt.Second, it is false because the burden of proof is on those who claim relatedness between two organisms (as it is on those who make any claim). The burden of proof is never on the one who denies a proposition until the proposition has been affirmed positively. My admission in no way can be construed as "positive affirmation" for the claim of relatedness..

You can suppose anything you want. A supposition without evidence is impossible to disprove (the falsification concept ToEers are so fond of...) but is worthless as a credible theory for that very reason.You can propose relatedness if you want; The proposal has no value if you can't support it evidentially; That I can't disprove relatedness (the supposition has no falsifiability) in no way supports the opposite.I believe these are logical concepts that none would deny - especially those with a professed interest in the integrity of science..

Do you read my posts? At all? 'cause if you did you would know that I proposed insemination as the test for relatedess. What this means is simple;1. If two organisms are capable of insemination, they are related2. If two organisms are not capable of insemination, they are not related3. In absence of insemination (insemination has not been observed, not that it can't occur) no relatedness can be unequivocally confirmed4. In absence of insemination (insemination has not been observed, not that it can't occur) non-relatedness can not be unequivocally confirmed.This simply means that:For those species that have been confirmed to interbeed (lion and tiger) there is relatedness.For those species that have been confirmed to not have the ability to interbeed, there is not relatednessFor those species that we have no data on whether they can or can't interbreed, we can neither uneqivocally confirm or deny relatedness.Hopefully this clarify things

I think I'm a little confused where you're coming from but I appreciate your efforts...