Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

mjfloresta: Everyone else is taking it to that level because they know your 'constraints' put it there. Observe: That's your constraint: breeding. Here's Google.

Definitions of species on the Web:

​

* In biology, a species is, loosely speaking, a group of related organisms that share a more or less distinctive form and are capable of interbreeding. As defined by Ernst Mayr, species are "groups of actually or potentially interbreeding natural populations which are reproductively isolated from other such groups" (however, see definitions of species below).
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species

​

* (biology) taxonomic group whose members can interbreed
* a specific kind of something; "a species of molecule"; "a species of villainy"
wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

​

* A single, distinct class of living creature with features that distinguish it from others.
ehrweb.aaas.org/ehr/books/glossary.html

​

* A classification of related organisms that can freely interbreed
Just a moment...

​

* A group of related organisms having common characteristics and capable of interbreeding. Loblolly and Virginia pine are common tree species that can interbreed.
http://www.ncforestry.org/docs/Glossary/term.htm

​

* a group of closely related organisms which are capable of interbreeding, and which are reproductively isolated from other groups of organisms; the basic unit of biological classification.
http://www.speciesatrisk.gc.ca/glossary_e.cfm

​

* a group of closely related organisms
http://www.ctap3.org/_lperry/africa/glossary.htm

​

* the taxonomic division of freely interbreeding population of wild or naturally occurring individuals below genus.
http://www.hostafarm.com/glofhote.html

​

* Any subspecies of fish or wildlife or plants, and any distinct population segment of any species of vertebrate fish or wildlife that interbreeds when mature.
Glossary

​

* A reproductively isolated aggregate of interbreeding organisms.
National Safety Council

​

* a group of organisms that share similar characteristics and can interbreed with one another to produce fertile offspring.
VDOE :: Error 404 - File Not Found

​

* (1) a group of organisms that have a unique set of characteristics (like body shape and behavior) that distinguishes them from other organisms. If they reproduce, individuals within the same species can produce fertile offspring. (2) the basic unit of biological classification. Scientists refer to species using both their genus and species name.
http://www.freakinfucus.co.uk/primers/prm_gloss.htm

​

* A group of similar fish that can freely interbreed.
http://www.ncfisheries.net/stocks/defsS.htm

​

* a singular or plural term for a population or series of populations of organisms that are capable of interbreeding freely with each other but not with members of other species. Includes a number of cases:
http://www.for.gov.bc.ca/...library/documents/glossary/S.htm

​

* groups of animals or plants having common characteristics and able to breed together to produce fertile (capable of reproducing) offspring, so that they ”maintain’ their ”separateness’ from other groups
shortened link

​

* The basic unit of living things, consisting of a group of individuals which all look more or less alike and which can all breed with each other to produce another generation of similar creatures. It is the category of biological classification ranking between the genus and the race, or "subspecies". shortened link

​

* a group of closely related individuals that have the potential to reproduce with each other; a unit of classification.
http://www.hcs.ohio-state.edu/mg/manual/glossary.htm

​

* A fundamental category of classification ranking below a genus.
Wildflower and planting terms glossary by Prairie Frontier

​

* A kind of organism. A genetically distinctive group of natural populations that share a common gene pool and are reproductively isolated from all other such groups.
http://www.sidney.ars.usda.gov/...Tools/F_Guide/Glossary.htm

​

* The most useful taxonomical name. Every living creature is assigned a unique species name, which is composed of two parts.
http://www.aqualink.com/basic/zglossa.html

​

* A group of populations of organisms that can potentially interbreed only with members of these populations
File Not Found | University of Guelph

​

* Species is a 1995 science fiction thriller. It stars Natasha Henstridge, Ben Kingsley, Michael Madsen, Forest Whitaker, Alfred Molina and Marg Helgenberger.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Species_(movie)

It appears your breeding 'constraint' fits the prevalent understanding of the word species very well. It appears that I do. It is you who have no basis for elevating species criteria to the Family level. Do you know what a Hyracotherium is?
Hyracotherium - Wikipedia
If so, do you really find it plausible that this creature could be crossed with an Equus?
There's a reason these creatures do not share the same species or genus name. No one found the idea of interbreeding between them very likely.But no, I can't say I've really run the experiment. So I'll be generous and grant for the moment that all the varieties of equid that have ever existed arose from the archetypal creatures on the ark. Here's a list of them again (genus level):

Anchilophus
Anchitherium
Archaeohippus
Astrohippus
Calippus
Cormohipparion
Dinohippus
Epihippus
Equus
Haplohippus
Haplohippus
Hipparion
Hippidion
Hypohippus
Hyracotherium
Lophiotherium
Megahippus
Merychippus
Mesohippus
Miohippus
Nannippus
Neohipparion
Onohippidium
Orohippus
Pachynolophus
Paleotherium
Parahipparion
Parahippus
Pliohippus
Propachynolophus
Propalaeotherium
Pseudohipparion
Sinohippus
Stylohipparion
(From Wikipedia: Equidae - Wikispecies)

Now I have two questions:First, how long would this diversification take? Remember, the creatures need time to evolve, thrive long enough to leave fossil records of multiple individuals on at least two continents, and go extinct before too many human historial records make mention of them.Second, why is this not macroevolution?.Edited by AdminFaith, : Links shortened by Admin FaithEdited by Archer Opterix, : HTML fix.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Honestly Ringo, it is very hard to keep track of what you think you're talking about. What ARE you talking about. Races or varieties is exactly what *I* was talking about. So? How would you know anyway? Who says there are such enormous differences among them? They're all cats. Big kitties, little kitties, yellow, black and spotted kitties. Well, I only have the vaguest idea of the genetics involved; I just figured that although whole races were killed, all the alleles aren't necessarily killed, but this is just vague musing on my part. Most alleles would have died of course. Of course. The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood.

yeah, and noah's is the one that's kinda out there. As far as I know, the hebrew civilization didn't start at a flooding river.there was a show a while back on it, and they hypothesised that noah's flood was the creation of one of the seas right by the meditarrannean--today linked to it. In it, a natural dam busted, and the entire place was flooded, until we have the present sea. Just wish I knew which sea specifically--can't remember.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Black Sea

anglagard: Good point. That would save Noah some space.And in the absence of insemination experiments, you can't say it couldn't happen, can you?

---

Archer

ringo's point is that the term race, as applied to humans, is very superficial.blacks, hispanics, asians, whites--we're all the same, damn it.poodles and great danes have more difference that do the so called races of man.how do we know that "lions and tigers and cats oh my" all have more variation inbetween them than poodles and great danes have inbetween them, and those two have more variation inbetween them then the so called races of man.the big point about the lions, tigers, and cats having greater variation between them is the fact that you can't interbreed them and get viable offspring--each are too different from the other to make it possible to have nonsterile offspring.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

gotcha.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

OK, no problem It simply follows from everything I've said here so far. It's nothing new. When I talked about the gradual playing out of the genome, this was implied. mjfloresta has been arguing along the same lines. It follows from the creationist model. There's apparently a misunderstanding somewhere. The idea is that the playing out of the genome, or "speciation," continues, but with less variability to work from, so it has slowed down.

The cheetah's bottleneck was probably fairly recent (contrary to some evo guesses), after the animal was already genetically defined, leaving it with very little genetic variability. The bottleneck of the Flood killed a lot of DNA, though, and I would say if you want evidence look at the junk DNA. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

how is junk DNA dead DNA? how does it show that are genetic potential is decreasing?If the amount of possible variation was decreasing, I would expect to see less and less extra DNA.after all, mutations aren't limited to just coded DNA, but to all of DNA. including the junk and psuedo genes. it's just that that variation is not phontypically represented.In order to decrease the possibility of variation, you would have to decrease how much DNA is available for mutation.By the end of the genetic fall we should see no DNA at all--after all, that is when genetic variation hits zero.so why don't we see a decrease in the legnth of DNA?

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

I think you may not understand how serious a problem this is for folk that believe in the "Great Wetting No One Noticed Particularly The Egyptians Who Kept Building Right Through The Whole Thing" since it would not be something hidden or hard to spot. It would stand out like a stoplight, flashing at everyone saying LOOK AT THIS.Regardless, it is things like this that the Biblical Creationists will need to provide before anyone is going to even give it a second thought.If and when the ID, YEC, Biblical Creationists come up with some evidence and models that explain things better than those current there is just no reason to bother with them.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith asserts: If this statement is true, the geological record, properly explored, will reflect it. The result of a global catastrophic flood will leave a very different geological record than the one shown in all our science books.Creationists have another golden opportunity to falsify the theory of evolution once and for all!You will find the blueprint for doing so in the Falsifications thread, Message 37:
http://EvC Forum: Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical Creationism -->EvC Forum: Is the TOE falsifiable and if it was, would it advance Biblical CreationismGood luck with the expeditions. I look forward to the scientific bonanza ahead!

---

Archer

Well argued. The claims for relatedness even among human beings based on DNA are not as cut and dried as so many claim who think DNA proves human-chimp relatedness beyond a doubt.

Don't despair. I only stepped out for some rice noodles.

---

Archer

We're happy with the one that is shown. It demonstrates the flood quite well. Well, polystrate trees and the like have been found but always get explained away. In fact lots of examples that validate the flood and contradict the ToE have been found but evos just rationalize them away, against logic but with a lot of aggression. So whatever we find is going to meet with the same treatment.