Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

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

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

I really hate being absent from this thread all day but that's life;I've been reviewing the content of the day's posts and it seems that the major topic de jour has been the request to define "body plan"; While I have thoughts on this area, I'm curious as to where this area of inquiry arose since I don't recall it being fundamental to the thesis I've proposed in this thread. If anyone needs feels that such a determination is necessary within the context of this thread, I'll gladly indulge in it; Otherwise, i'd prefer we leave it for another thread since personally, I'm not all that sure what context it fits into in this thread.

Delineating body plans would certainly aid in the understanding of Kinds. I just figure that since we've rolling right along in this thread we would save room in this thread and deal with body plans in another (and here I am wasting valuable thread space with this post).

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.

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

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...

Obviously a YeC origins paradigm challenges the status quo in virtually every area of science. I realize that, but at the same time I hope everyone realizes the point and the scope of this thread is very limited within that paradigm. That's how it works, you deal with one thing at a time.Now while I don't feel that Archer Opeterix has done this at all (refering to the following statement, not the previous) others have felt it relevant to bring up the far-reaching implications of this thread as proof of its invalidity. As questions arise, we will certainly deal with them in their proper context. But piling on tectonic theories, ancient ecosystems, geographic dispersal data, etc...is far beyond the intended or actual scope of this thread.
I hope everyone can take this into consideration..

This thread is coming to it's end; I think it's been a beneficial thread and hopefully we've made some real progress. I know many things have been left unanswered, unintentionally or due to a lack of time on my part. Or in some cases, questions were lost amid the rapidity with which this thread progressed.Consequently, I would request that we use the final posts of this thread to come to conclusions on what we have discussed and to present the pertinent questions and ideas that have sprung from this thread (and there are many). I would request that these questions and ideas be posed within the context of their to this thread. For example, if you feel this question has implications for Plate Tectonic Theory, raise the question, and explain its relevance to this topic. At times, it has been asked of me in this thread why I haven't addressed this or that concept, and thus presented as proof of the paucity of the theory. In reality, any such topic either failed to see the relevance to this topic, or could not properly address within the context of this thread. It was/is not my topic to ignore or disregard such things, and be assured I am eager to address them in the proper thread.Thank you all who contributed to this thread. It has been a pleasure..