Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

quote:

---

"microevolution is the necessary mechanism in the case of the flood. Why so? Because if all of the kinds were present on the ark, the amount of variation necessary to result in today's species is relatively little, and well within the observed range of variation for a species, as I will show."

---

So what is Microevolution, i know many examples have been given but to
discuss it further a hard (creationist) definition is neeeded. The evolutionary definition is evolution within a species but not leading to a divergent species. This obviously fails to allow the creation of new species from the kinds within the ark, so...

quote:

---

microevolution is the necessary mechanism

---

Important to note that in traditional science micro and macro evo relate only to degrees of evolution having the same mechanism.Edited by qed, : No reason given.

I am still interested in your response to Message 5.

This was my definition from the opening post. All this means is that variation within the population that leads to different allelic frequencies is microevolution. A single generation represents microevolution because the offspring represents genetic variation from the parents.

I addressed this already somewhere in this thread (specifically by example or generically i don't remember) but I'm not surprised if you missed it among the flood (not The Flood, just the flood of posts, It is likely that each of the species that you mention are representative of kinds that are no longer well represented - the other member species disappeared by extinction. In these cases, the sloth or the kangaroo likely are the lone living representatives of their respective kinds, thus they are isolated taxonomically or whatever your method of classification.Imagine that all primate went extinct except for one species - say the marmoset. Marmorsets would be in the same situation as the species you mentioned, seemingly alone on the taxonomic tree.As far as assuming ancestry, I don't see how that is possible since the kinds are so poorly represented.

I think MJ answered the essence of your question in an answer to someone else in Message 65

Then I will take it that you have no answer.The important thing about the creatures I mentioned, is that where they lived is very far from the middle east, and there is no evidence of any close relative any where near where Noah is supposed to have populated his ark. The very existence of such creatures already demonstrates that the idea of a global flood is no more than myth or fable. Thus it is no surprise that you are unable to provide a suitable explanation, consistent with the flood story, of how there could be such creatures.

He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread, so you cannot say he had no answer. You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.

What? What you say makes no sense at all
I have no idea what you are saying or why it constitutes the proof that you claim it does. Perhaps you could make a few more connections with what you're saying and the proof that you say you're providing.Edited by mjfloresta, : Proper quotation

No. He gave a vague handwaving response which simply evaded the question. No. This is about creatures that could not possibly be explained by micro-evolution from what was plausibly on the ark. It is very much on topic.

There was nothing handwaving about it, just as most of what evos call handwaving isn't. He answered you according to the most reasonable GENETIC explanation for the rarity of the creatures named. GENETICS, inheritance, evolution is the topic of the thread. Why we don't find a lot of other varieties of the same Kinds. Well, geographic dispersion MAY have something to do with why, but whatever the cause of it, the effect was EXTINCTION. It's a reasonable answer. I'm sorry, MJ's answer DOES explain how that could have happened in genetic terms. If you want to discuss geographic dispersion as such, start another thread.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Excuse me; haven't you said a number of times that you don't understand the genetic discussions that have been going on around here?

Whoa...Give Faith some credit would you? It's clear to her as it is to me (as it should be to anyone who's paying attention) that since this is a genetic-based thread, nwr's post critique is outside of this discussion. A pH.d in genetics is hardly necessary to see that...

Mjfloresta, you have a talent for making statements that sound clearly thought out, but are in fact devoid of content. Well represented? Do they exist or do they not? Did they exist at all? Where can evidence of them be found? What evidence makes this "likely"?

It's a reasonable hypothesis based on the creationist model of all modern life forms having microevolved from the pairs that were on the ark, which is after all what is being argued here.

It looks like you need three threads:

Defining 'micro/macro evolution'
Defining biological 'kind'
Defining 'body plan'

Plus additional threads for any other terms that arise.A thread you will likely need soon:

Establishing biological 'kind' for extinct organisms

Eventually you're going to have to address plate tectonic theory and the findings it comprises, along with ancient ecosystems and related topics.You've set a huge task for yourself. Keep the coffee on.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.