Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Funny how that happens. LOLIt's amazing what even a short exposure to reality can do. We see that here all the time, Biblical Creationists come in to set the record straight and over time come to realize that the Biblical Creation position is totally bankrupt and so toss it on the trash heap.The key thing is that the YECs and IDists and Biblical Creationists never put forward a model that stands up to examination. For example, in the issue of Micro to Macro, the Biblical Creationists need to explain one simple thing.If everyday I put change in a pile, what limits how much money that pile might grow into?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Genetics does not operate on the same principle as a pile of money.

So you assert.Can you anser the question posed in Message 181?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Sounds like backwards thinking to me. You've decided that all cat-like animals are one "kind" and all dog-like animals are a different "kind". Now you want to make up definitions that will back up your conclusion.It would make more sense to define the categories first, and then put each animal into the appropriate category.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Yeah, it is pretty much just a game. As I pointed out in Message 161, any attempt like what Faith is proposing can NEVER be science. They begin with the absolute that man must stay in a separate "Kind" from chimp and that any "Kind" mentioned in the Bible must also be a base.Until they can approach things with the understanding that if man and chimp turn out to be that same kind they will accept it, there can never be any hope of them doing science.

Science means always being ready to admit that what you know is right was wrong.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Faith wrote: Accepted. What does it mean to say 'The ability to interbreed is going to be foundational'? And what doesn't fit? Yes. That would be a good start.I mentioned the objective criteria at work in the current taxonomic system. Faith responded: Fine. It has to offer more than 'nonviolation' to function as a scientific term, though, you know. You just said that 'Kind' would not violate present classifications.
That's part of the standard definition of a 'species.' 'That evolutionist system' predates the theory of evolution by two centuries. When Darwin titled his book Origin of Species the word 'species' was already well understood in biology. The term had been minted by creationists, actually. So interbreeding creatures represent a subset of the set 'Kind.' Interbreeding is part of the definition of a Kind, but not all of it. How so?Edited by Archer Opterix, : No reason given.

---

Archer

"It is not pleasing that I placed humans among the primates, but man knows himself. Let us get the words out of the way. It will be equal to me by whatever name they are treated. But I ask you and the whole world a generic difference between men and simians in accordance with the principles of Natural History. I certainly know none. If only someone would tell me one! If I called man an ape or vice versa I would bring together all the theologians against me. Perhaps I ought to scientifically", -Carolus Linnaeus, Creationist founder of Taxonomy

Ringo writes: Indeed. And as these categories force genetic limits, they require genetic definitions. 'It looks like a dog to me' doesn't cut it.The task is to find that place where the pile of change stops growing, define that place, and connect it with a kind.Edited by Archer Opterix, : More concise.

---

Archer

Faith writes: This is an empty statement until you demonstrate the principle it does operate on.Find that place where the pile stops growing. Define it. Enable others to replicate your finding.Then you will be doing science. Not before.

---

Archer

Ok so this discussion is kind of trapped at what is a "kind".
Could kinds be "The set of common ancestors which inEdited by qed, : clarify

jar writes: That says a lot for the environment you've made here at EvC. In other forums you see them storm off rather quickly once they realize the sermon is going nowhere.

---

Archer

If only I didn't need sleep. I'm going to try something.Kind--the top classification level. The only members allowed are those that can interbreed and produce offspring--whether or not this is done artificially is of no concern. The second requirement, is that all members of the same Kind have the same, basic, body plan.note--Kind is not kingdom, in the current txonomy system. Reason why--body plan. There are several body plans in each kingdom, with the most being in the Protoctista and Prokaryota, I'd say.Now we need body plan. Faith and mjfloresta have said it is something intuitive. Well, let's try to make it objective. It's been said that cat's and dog's and man have different body plans. Not according to science as we know it, but we're gonna have to change it.Body plan--a distinct form that no other organism, besides those in the same kind, shares.
rabbits would not be in the same kind as man. But, they might be with rats.Actually, we need a better, more objective defintion of body plan. Otherwise, we end up with a circle. It's in the same kind becuase it can interbreed, but we only know it's body plan is similar because it can interbreed.so let's try again.
body plan--a separate division from Kind. Even though only those with the same body plan will be in the same kind, we need to separate them, to try and avoid the circle. So, in order to determine body plan, we need the platonic form of the organism in question. But damn it, how do we know the platonic form objectively, and not intuitively (and thereby subjectively)? Help me Faith and mjfloresta.Once we do get it sorted out, this might be what hte tree looks like.
Kind (all cats--lions, tigers, bobcats, panthers, cheetahs, etc)
Body Plan (same as a above)
Family (lion, cheetah, tiger, bobcat, panther, etc)needs to be fleshed out, me thinks.one last thing--as to body plans. Cows and horses have hooves, four legs, tail, a head, a backbone. So do pigs. In order to separate them (if they can't interbreed), you'd have to drop the hooves. which characteristics separate the cattle, the horse, and the pig from each other, to put them into different kinds?ABE: my other ulterior motive, Faith and mjfloresta, was trying to show mjfloresta that we've got more evidence oh hybrids that he might have thought. This was actually the primary one--the the first motive I listed is of course, the most important, it was one of those that you realize after the fact.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

To a YEC, "kinds" are more like "The set of common ancestors that would fit on the ark."If there was room for a separate "lion-kind" and "tiger-kind", they'd have them. After all, raven-kind and dove-kind are explicitly mentioned, and they're not very different in "body plan", are they?
(Nor do they seem to have evolved much since the flood.)Once they figure out how many kinds they have room for, they adjust the rate of evolution to fit the time alloted.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

OK, I guess I misread you. But this illustrates a way we have a problem with the evolutionist definitions of "species." Obviously lions and tigers are cats. Obviously. But we can't say they are related (are members of a Kind) on the basis of such a subjective observation. But interbreeding them gives us an objective criterion.I'm maybe too happy with this criterion of interbreeding for defining a Kind, and I am aware that there will have to be some qualifiers appended in any case; maybe something will yet cause me to change my mind. But it makes sense to me so far, and the list kuresu put up seems to answer a lot of those knotty questions about relatedness, by showing that it has already happened between some types we'd otherwise have to relegate to no-way-to-know, although, again, these are types like lions and tigers that seem intuitively or subjectively to be related, that is, members of the same Kind, and the virtue of this list of hybrids is that it makes it objective.=========================================
To posters in general: Now, the rest of this thread seems to have gone off demanding a greater precision than should be expected at this point in our thinking, all in the service of harassment or discouragement I would suppose. To such it is never merely that there are questions yet to be answered (although if we were evolutionists that's how the situation would be viewed), it's that the fact that we haven't yet answered them proves us wrong; and they even indulge in their usual ridicule without even bothering to acknowledge the progress made in starting to define a Kind here.Nothing can be done but ignore them.

That's a good definition.Now, has anyone tried to interbreed a simian and a human? The thought is blasphemous and sinful, but by our new working criterion for a Kind, it's a necessary test.