|
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: |
mjfloresta:
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) Everyone else is taking it to that level because they know your 'constraints' put it there. Observe:
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.. That's your constraint: breeding. Here's Google.
It appears your breeding 'constraint' fits the prevalent understanding of the word species very well.
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. It appears that I do. It is you who have no basis for elevating species criteria to the Family 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.. 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 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 Faith Edited by Archer Opterix, : HTML fix. Archer All species are transitional.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. 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.
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". 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.
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.) 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.
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? Of course. The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
anglagard Member (Idle past 867 days) Posts: 2339 From: Socorro, New Mexico USA Joined: |
Black Sea
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
anglagard:
At this [Family] level, humans, bonobos, chimps, gorillas, and orangutans are all members of the family Hominidae. Therefore, the other apes need not be factored in as different kinds under this model, as they are all descendents of Noah and his extended family. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
gotcha.
All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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. OK, no problem
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. 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.
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? 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
... 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. 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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
kuresu Member (Idle past 2544 days) Posts: 2544 From: boulder, colorado Joined: |
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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 425 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
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. 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
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Faith asserts:
The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood. 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 Creationism Good luck with the expeditions. I look forward to the scientific bonanza ahead! Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
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.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Archer Opteryx Member (Idle past 3628 days) Posts: 1811 From: East Asia Joined: |
Archaeopteryx hasn't been back. Don't despair. I only stepped out for some rice noodles. Archer
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1475 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
The fossils record IS what was wiped out by the flood. 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. We're happy with the one that is shown. It demonstrates the flood quite well.
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 Creationism Good luck with the expeditions. I look forward to the scientific bonanza ahead! 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.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024