Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

You're right; Intuition and interbreeding seem to paint a similar picture.

Well, she? is the one who came up with the hybridization criterion, and I didn't know there had been all these interbred types. Now I'd say there is definitely some evidence based on that criterion. It looks good to me.Otherwise, all the other stuff merely pointing to the genome to "prove" humans are related to chimps and so on is NOT evidence. That's been my position. But these actual living combinations ARE evidence. I didn't see her? saying this. I thought she? corrected a misunderstanding about something along these lines. Well, probably not to make us creationists happy though, so what was your ulterior motive in producing that list?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

kind then becomes the taxonomic system, no?after all, taxonomy is the science of classification, right?just having some fun. no harm intended.now if we can just work on that body plan. Where are the limits. Because all tetrapods are considered to have the same basic body plan--four legs, head, rear end, backbone. Are body plans more specific or less?the reason I keep bringing it back to family is becuase mjfloresta has repeatedly stated that if anywhere, Kind would be comprarable to family, or really close to it. So that leaves order and genus. But order might be too much for you guys, and class (above order) is too much (I think. catch me on that later)And genus, well, it just seems that there are too many for your all's proposal. And, if using the traditional macro defintion, then if Kind is genus, and we've observed genus splits due to speciation, then macro is real. But you claim it isn't, so the best I can figure where Kind would fit it not our classification is at family.hope that helps.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Though I too am curious to know the ulterior motive, it's way late where I am and I'll have to find out in the morning. After church..P.S. - I'm a guy
The MJ stands for Matthew JamesNight all

ulterior motive--finding a way to put to rest the creationist argument.as mjfloresta has been saying, unless it can be refuted, you can't use it as an argument. lack of evidence can't be refuted, lack of definition can't be refuted.so, in order to refute the creationist view, we need to define Kind. which has been, until now, nigh impossible.but you know, you can finally begin to start saying that your position is actually science, because it can now be falsified. it might not be right, but it can still be science.I'll have to dig up those comments later. I'm singing off for tonight--I do need my sleep.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

well, that makes it easier.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

Well good night MJ. I know you're a fairly young guy by your Profile -- by contrast with my aged self at least. You've done more for the clarification of microevolution and Kinds so far than anyone else at EvC I'd say. Nice clear thinking; I'm impressed. Kuresu helped in this last stretch though, probably inadvertently. Happy Sunday. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Good night kuresu. I'm happy as a clam. Whatever that means. I think Progress was made on this thread today. I'm sure my joy won't last as the next shift of evos comes on, but great, we actually have a start toward defining a Kind???Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, sure, we'll have to reorganize the taxonomic table if we do get Kinds sorted out. But so far all we have is a very few for a beginning, and for all I know somebody will bring up some problem with the list you gave. The problem is it's an intuitive thing, unless mfj has more objective criteria for it. When he said that all the known variation does not change the basic body plan I simply knew what he meant. But specifying it isn't so easy. A dog is a dog is a dog whether it's a chihuahua or a St. Bernard or anything else, and it isn't going to be mistaken for a cat (on close examination, anyway, should one superficially look cattish). I tried to group kinds by behavior on a thread a few months ago. But the problem is that it is an intuitive or subjective classification. It drove me crazy that people would dispute the classification by behavior which to my mind is obvious, but oh well; the same is no doubt now going to be true about "body plan."On the other hand, what makes the Linnaean system anything more than subjective? I really think this is all irrelevant, and that if it can be interbred, artificially if necessary, that's all we need to know. The taxonomic levels can be sorted out later. Based on what? Kinds should be arrayed across the top of the list, and there should be no higher classification because they aren't a subset of anything.*Speciation splits EVERYTHING at EVERY level, kuresu. I don't see how this is any kind of criterion for anything. As soon as you've bred a new dog you've created a split that is a speciation event. I'll have to study the taxonomic table again, maybe tomorrow if I have time. I've been ignoring it because I haven't seen its relevance.{EDIT: * Kinds are the grouping of many genetic variations on their theme, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since. So their classification is basically genetic, not morphological and they ARE the top of the tree genetically speaking. Morphology would enter into it when there is no way to establish relatedness otherwise I suppose.I did look up the classifications and they just don't help with this problem. The standard taxonomic classification is either purely morphological or according to evolutionist ideas of genetics and just doesn't apply. Some Kinds may turn out to be at what is now labeled Genus level and some at Family level on the current tree, and for all I know some may be at other levels too, but wherever they are they are a closed genetic group defined by capacity to interbreed, even if this can only be done artificially.Some interbreeding is very problematic even within a Kind of course, and some may even turn out to be impossible although there are other reasons to include a type in the Kind. The problems with interbreeding, according to the YEC view, are caused by the fact that "speciation" or the separation of the types from each other have involved the loss of much genetic material ("information") that was present in the original population. So, I think I read somewhere that the cheetah simply can't be interbred with any other cat by any means whatever. Maybe this is wrong. But if it's right, this doesn't put the cheetah outside the cat Kind.So, the Linnaean system will end up classifying simply by morphology above the Kinds, but the Kinds are Genetic Kingdoms.} Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Faith wrote: kuresu write: Faith replied: Hold the phone.mjfloresta is telling us that a breeding pair of each kind (family level at the most, with genus and species levels implicated) was taken on the ark. The purpose of this was to save these creatures from destruction in the Flood.Now Faith tells us that at least one entire superorder in the Animal Kingdom, containing throngs of 'kinds' (families, genus, species) was 'wiped out by the Flood.' The non-avian dinosaurs are extinct today because they were not saved from this catastrophe.

Dinosauria - Wikispecies

So which is it?

---

Archer

I was speaking of what is seen in the fossil record and not seen now -- many representatives of many Kinds. That doesn't imply that a representative of the Kind was not on the ark. There had to be a pair of the Kind that includes the dinosaurs, whatever that Kind is. It could have been a smaller type of the Kind, or it is possible that large reptiles lived after the flood for some period. I take the dragon stories seriously myself. In any case SOME pair of the Kind was saved.MJ was not dogmatic about what level of the taxonomic tree represents a Kind and neither have I been. The taxonomic system is not very useful for this purpose. The ability to interbreed seems to be the best criterion, and kuresu's list of hybrid creatures seems to answer a lot of questions about what constitutes some of the Kinds.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

We have yet to see scientific definitions of kind and body plan.For kind we have been told by mjf that it equates to the Family level of classification. The defining criterion of 'kind' is the possibility of breeding, though, which implicates the genus and species levels. The discrepancy has not been clarified.Faith tells us that defining body plan is an 'intuitive thing'. She says she can't define it, but maybe mjf can.Both of you are putting forward a view that asserts these terms describe real genetic limits. But you do not provide the description and you do not show the limits. These are crucial terms in your hypothesis. If you intend it to pass muster as science, you are obligated to define these terms in a way that locates, and predicts, genetic realities.What are those definitions?

---

Archer

I hope MJ can define "body plan." Maybe you have the ability to do it yourself. Surely you can recognize the basic body build of a horse as versus a goat as versus a dog as versus an elephant. Try for a definition.The limits of the Kind are defined by the capacity to interbreed, if only by artificial insemination. Isn't that good enough for a definition? This is the first hopeful definition of a Kind I've yet seen. It solves my problem with the interbreeding criterion which is that so many obvious members of a Kind don't interbreed, but MJ pointed out it's probably not that they can't but just don't, so artificial insemination would be a test. But kuresu's list of hybrids is confirmation of this idea anyway it seems to me. There are probably some exceptions in which interbreeding isn't possible between some members of a Kind (because of genetic depletion?) but I would suppose that those are rare and that the similar morphology would be the criterion in that case.I did define Kinds back a few posts, which I might modify to: "A Kind is the total of all genetic variations on a particular body plan, descended from an original that contained all the genetic information needed for every variation since; and inclusion in the Kind should be testable by the ability to interbreed, even if that requires artificial intervention."When MJ gets back from church maybe he'll have a better definition.

That's where your use of "body plan" becomes confusing. If you had asked me for examples with different body plans, I might have looked to octupus, ant, tapeworm as three examples. I see horse, goat, dog, elephant as all having the same basic body plan.

Does "body build" suggest something different?I know exactly what MJ meant myself and I'm sure there are others who do, so when enough of those who do happen to consider the question, then we may be able to come up with a definition.Cat body flexibility vs. dog body stiffness perhaps is a distinction. I still think behavior is most definitive myself. Elephant trunk, tusks, thick legs. Etc.