|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 5994 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
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. 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..
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
OK, I get it.
But actually. I THINK I read somewhere that there is no way to save the cheetah from its plight of allelic starvation even by artificial insemination, or something like that, having to do with the condition of the genome itself preventing it from recombining. This is all very vague in my mind though.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
okay, so kind is genus--where hybridization is possible. or it would be family. I don't think it's possible to have hybridization beyond family, not sure though.
horse + donkey = mulewhale + dolphin = wholphin (actually, this might be family?) tiger + lion = tion, liger All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
you know, we've argued the cheetah before.
if I recall correctly, the limited variability it has is thanks to our hunting down cheetahs and destroying their habitat, forcing them into separated, very small, populations. not genetic's fault for reduced variability, our fault. All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 412 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Faith writes: There is pretty great variation in "races" throughout the world just from Noah's family. But we're not talking about "races" or "varieties" It's still all the human race. We're talking about cat-kind becoming lions and tigers and housecats and leopards and lynxes and bobcats and cheetahs.... Those are much greater "variations".
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. So you're saying that some of the "races" that were wiped out by the flood might have "come back", as it were, from the vast repository of "genetic potential"? (See, I would have thought that that would have been a good "Design". Cram in so much "genetic potential" that no single species could ever go extinct. It would always "vary back into existence" from another branch of its "kind". Your "dwindling potential" scenario seems to be a poorer design than mine. )
The sabre-toothed tiger never came back. The dinosaurs never came back. Archaeopteryx hasn't been back. Just to clarify: Are you saying that those examples were wiped out by the flood? Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation. Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 837 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
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. Agreed. This is what I said:
quote: I was using the term so-called to show you did not agree with the terminology, and was asserting it was, according to you, normal microevolution as in the part "there is nothing hyper about it." Obviously, I was not clear enough on this point. No false attribution was intended.
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. Now I'm confused. Normal evolution is slowing down? That's quite an assertion. If you could provide irrefutable evidence, I believe a Nobel Prize is in the offing.
Nevertheless, certainly speciation continues, and a devotee of the ToE ought to know that as well as I do. I'm beginning to get the funny feeling my position is being misrepresented. Obviously, I agree that speciation continues, although not at some unobserved "hyper" rate. Where have I said it hasn't?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
It is the fact that we can see that genetic signature in the Cheetah that helps refute the nonsense of the floodists.
If the flood happened we would see exactly the same type signature in EVERY critter, every animal, every plant and all pointing to the same event. It just ain't been found. Frankly, the Cheetah is just another nail in the coffin of ID, YEC and Biblical Creationism. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 5994 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
f the flood happened we would see exactly the same type signature in EVERY critter, every animal, every plant and all pointing to the same event. It just ain't been found. I'm not at all sure what you mean by "same type sequence" in every critter; Could you explain?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 5994 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
Duplicate thread
Edited by mjfloresta, : Duplicate thread
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If the Great Wetting That No One Noticed actually happened there should be a genetic marker in every critter showing a great bottleneck at about 4500 years ago. That signature would be in every critter, every plant that exists today.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
mjfloresta Member (Idle past 5994 days) Posts: 277 From: N.Y. Joined: |
If the Great Wetting That No One Noticed actually happened there should be a genetic marker in every critter showing a great bottleneck at about 4500 years ago. That signature would be in every critter, every plant that exists today. 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...
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2513 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
records a flood 'mythology' good. you accept the flood as a myth. as to the bottleneck.the signature of the bottleneck is, if I understand correctly, the reduced variation in a species thanks to a near extinction event. even we have one, though its about 70000 years old, and is, if I recall correctly, thanks to a volcanic explosion. put better. population = 100 (asexual)near extinction event population = 10 we would see a variation relating to only those 10 survivors. many species have bottlenecks, I would think, but they are all over the place. The cheetah bottleneck is recent. the corn bottleneck (the corn we eat, that is) is roughly 10000 years or a little older the human bottleneck is 70 thousandish years old All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 394 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Please explain this genetic marker or signature that you're looking for... Can't explain it since so far it doesn't seem to exist. But just as we can see a genetic bottleneck in Cheetahs, in Humans (several in humans) and in many other species, if The Great Wetting That Never Happened had actually happened, there would be an indicator that everything, plant, animal, whatever is descended from some small population (a bottleneck) that happened about 4500 years ago. This is just another nail in the coffin of the flood myth as reality. It just never happened. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3598 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
mjfloresta writes:
[...]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? It means we can know--based on genetics--that you are related to your grandfather. And we can know how closely you are related. It means we can also know--based on genetics--that you are related, though more distantly, to your third cousin. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though still more distantly, to the lady at the corner drugstore. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Bonzo the chimp. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Fritz the cat. We can also know--based on the same science--that you are related, though even more distantly, to Toby the tapeworm. If you want science to draw a boundary somewhere in there, you have to demonstrate a valid scientific basis for drawing it. There's no point denying a connection between genetics and relatedness. The link is established. Ask granddad.
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. The ToE does not 'assume' all organisms are related. The ToE predicted it. Genetics proved it. Relatedness is not assumed. Scientists describe organisms as related only when they are shown to be related. How does it show? The same way it shows whether you are related to your grandfather. It just happens that all life on earth is indeed related this way. The genetic investigations were made and that's the reality. A time existed not long ago, before the science of genetics progressed as far as it has, when one could hypothesize other outcomes. Many creationists did. But those outcomes did not happen. Relatedness is the reality.
It fails to ask whether genetics can answer the question "are two organisms related?". Of course it can. It does everyday. Remember granddad?
Creationists have no genetic basis for determing the placement of the kind: Thanks for the candor. But this will not do. If you mean to establish 'kinds' as categories of organisms that do not mutate (evolve) beyond certain boundaries, you need to show the placement of those boundaries. Those boundaries have to function at the genetic level.
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).. Imagine someone in a paternity suit denying a relationship to a baby. The genetic tests show conclusively he is the father. But he argues that he and the kid are not 'in fact related' but 'merely appear so' because they happen to 'share similar building blocks.' Does he have a chance?
Thus both paradigms are equally unable to assert relatedness based on the current state of morphology or genetics. It's a waste of time trying to wish the the ToE into the same pseudoscientific boat as creationism. You admit gobs of evolution anyway. Your task is to get any alternative theories you like out of that leaky boat with some real science. You say some related organisms are really related and some related organisms only 'appear to be' so. On what basis? To get anyone to buy that, you are obliged to define the boundaries of real relatedness as opposed to your hypothesized 'illusory' relatedness. The distinction has to be testable. This lame effort to fog the validity of genetic evidence did you little good. Your time was better spent, IMO, when you were presenting your own theory. Let's get back to that. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Subtitle. Edited by Archer Opterix, : Spelling. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Brad McFall Member (Idle past 5033 days) Posts: 3428 From: Ithaca,NY, USA Joined: |
The c/e debate over micro/macro will(can) be stopped when “three lines” of Kant
quote:are attributed to the difference of bifurcation and polytomies of Gould (below). quote:But Gould does not think this can be normalized (above). I disagree. More later. I would tend to think that Gould missed this one because he was in some way influenced by “Panbiogeography” which he claims to have read in graduate school. How to apply the lingo of databases to a possible normalization is a happy work in progress. With normal forms restricting the causality of species levels process “macro” evolution need not be only in the province of standard nor expanded evolutionary theory. It could apply to other kinds of neutral biogeographic distributions which have no respect of religions or sufficient conceptions of human population growth.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024