Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 179 of 284 (343939)
08-27-2006 11:59 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by qed
08-27-2006 11:48 AM


Re: A question
I was wondering at what point does Creationism preclude Evolution. Is it against creationism to believe that the "kinds" on the Ark could naturally evolve into more species, say the Ark frog into the green tree frog and poison arrow frog.
This is what we've been talking about all along. This is microevolution and we are saying that all the kinds on the ark evolved in this sense into many varieties down to the present.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by qed, posted 08-27-2006 11:48 AM qed has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 180 of 284 (343941)
08-27-2006 12:01 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by Archer Opteryx
08-27-2006 11:46 AM


Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
My my, so impatient. We're working on it. MJ will no doubt have something to say. And we may have to wait for others who know intuitively what we are talking about before we can get the definition hammered out, as I've said many times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2006 11:46 AM Archer Opteryx has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 182 of 284 (343947)
08-27-2006 12:14 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by jar
08-27-2006 12:04 PM


Re: all-purpose Flood explanation
Genetics does not operate on the same principle as a pile of money.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by jar, posted 08-27-2006 12:04 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by jar, posted 08-27-2006 12:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 189 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2006 1:27 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 284 (344044)
08-27-2006 7:44 PM
Reply to: Message 172 by qed
08-27-2006 11:25 AM


Re: Sorry
A major debate in taxonomy is whether artificial or exceptional breeding such as between lions and tigers should be seperate species, once again mirrored on this board. I'm just saying that the system being evolved independantly here does have many similiarities with the modern Linnean,
which is great.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 172 by qed, posted 08-27-2006 11:25 AM qed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 203 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2006 10:42 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 284 (344047)
08-27-2006 7:51 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by qed
08-27-2006 1:31 PM


Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
Ok so this discussion is kind of trapped at what is a "kind".
Could kinds be "The set of common ancestors which in <5000 alone
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by qed, posted 08-27-2006 1:31 PM qed has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 205 by Archer Opteryx, posted 08-27-2006 11:14 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 196 of 284 (344050)
08-27-2006 8:00 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by kuresu
08-27-2006 2:35 PM


Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
Nice to see you working on the problem. As I recall, "body plan" first came up in relation to the genetics involved in variation, the claim being that we see every kind of variation in elements such as -- well, maybe we could call them "adornments" -- word just popped into my head -- but not in body plan.
Adornments -- hair, fur, color, skin, size, shortening, lengthening or elongating, (even some personality traits I suppose) and that sort of thing: All that varies and may vary enormously, while the basic body plan remains recognizable no matter how it gets pushed and pulled and stretched and so on. This basic unevolvable thing we're calling "body plan" is a matter of how the creature both looks and behaves I think.
This would have to be worked out through a lot of examples and tests of course.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 2:35 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:27 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 198 of 284 (344061)
08-27-2006 8:41 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by kuresu
08-27-2006 8:27 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
you would agree that horses, cattle, and pig are each their own kind, no? what part of each's body plan is different enough to give them their own, unique, body plan?
This is what we are trying to define.
I don't know how to separate their body plans--they look enough alike to me. Maybe you or mjfloresta have some ideas on this?
Yes, this is the problem. But you have no problem telling them apart, do you? This is what I mean by how it's an intuitive thing. None of us has a problem telling a pig from a cow from a horse. Whatever the defining characteristics are that make it possible to categorize them as easily as we all do is what we're looking for. It's worth spending some time on I think.
But also, again, MJ didn't propose body plan in this sense anyway; but as the genetic barrier that separates Kinds from each other that he figures will eventually be recognized in the genome.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 197 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:27 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:56 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 200 of 284 (344066)
08-27-2006 9:10 PM
Reply to: Message 199 by kuresu
08-27-2006 8:56 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
I'd like to play with the body plan idea for a while still, but it doesn't have to take up this thread.
Would it be possible to interbreed a cow and a pig? I'm sure that if we work at it we can make a start toward saying why we know they aren't the same Kind based on mere observation of body plan.
What Linnaeus' system has simply can't be taken as our reference point except in the loosest possible sense.
About interbreeding simians and homo sapiens, I would guess that probably somebody somewhere has already tried it.
About the criterion of interbreeding and producing offspring, I want to keep the caveat on the table that even within the Kind there will probably be types that this is impossible for, because of their greater genetic separation from each other, loss of genetic information in the former processes of differentiation or speciation. At this point some other criterion has to enter. But I'm also aware that as soon as we allow this exception, it can become the basis for objecting that even if you can't interbreed simians with people that's no proof they aren't related. More stuff to think about.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 199 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 8:56 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 9:35 PM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 202 of 284 (344081)
08-27-2006 10:26 PM
Reply to: Message 201 by kuresu
08-27-2006 9:35 PM


Re: Re:...thread explodes / fun trying to define the kind
throw out genetic deterioration with the kind idea. I know you link it to the fall, and, unfortnuately for you, the fall is a biblical idea, and would be very difficult to prove.
Well, Kind is a Biblical idea too. We're committed to finding evidence for all these things. We don't need to prove the Fall as such, but genetic deterioration ought eventually to be provable.
Especially since genetics, without ToE, does not show a deterioration of genetic variation. It's just one more subjective critiria that needs to be thrown out.
Oh I disagree. I see this deterioration the same way I see the body plan. It's just a matter of finding the evidence and the definitions that bring it out for others.
here's why? Kind is from the bible, and we're finally getting an objective definition, but in genesis, we have "and the cattle according to thier kinds", "beasts of the earth according to thier kinds". So we have one animal, cattle, that has several kinds within it.
Well, buffalo, yaks etc? Depends on what the word means in the Biblical context. Perhaps it's broad enough to include camels and sheep. I'd have to study it more. But yes, the Biblical terms are ambiguous. All we know for sure is that different kinds that are still identifiable is where it all started. It didn't start with single-celled creatures in the primordial soup. We are trying to work from genetics.
your frog example--that there might be some frogs incapable of interbreeding with other frogs, would fall into the cattle example. Make them two separate kinds.
Nope. A frog is a frog. I'm talking about speciation, a frog that developed from a parent population with the inability to interbreed with it. We know it's the same kind for that reason. Taxonomically it's either a frog or it's unclassifiable due to inability to get precise enough definitions.
That gives us a concrete, objective definiton to work with, no?
No. Sorry, we have to hold to the creationist premises through all of this. That's our job.
kind--a group of organisms sharing a common ancestor due to the ability to interbreed with each other.
Sounds like a candidate for what we're looking for, but we do have to retain that caveat or exception.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 201 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 9:35 PM kuresu has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 204 by kuresu, posted 08-27-2006 10:46 PM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 209 of 284 (344121)
08-28-2006 12:49 AM
Reply to: Message 208 by mjfloresta
08-28-2006 12:46 AM


Since I was so happy to have a possible definition of Kind in kuresu's list of hybrids I was probably the one who brought up body plan as a contribution to the definition. Sure, save it for another thread and let's get back to the topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:46 AM mjfloresta has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 210 by mjfloresta, posted 08-28-2006 12:59 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 215 of 284 (344138)
08-28-2006 1:42 AM
Reply to: Message 212 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:24 AM


Re: Response please
I think MJ answered the essence of your question in an answer to someone else in Message 65
in regard to the various species you've listed; I assume you raise these examples because they are taxonomically rather distinct - little islands unto themselves...Therefore where do they fit in?
I think it's likely that there are many kinds that are poorly represented today: The fossil record indicates a tremendous amount of extinction; Therfore, the examples you have raised likely are the lone representatives of their kind.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 212 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:24 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 217 of 284 (344143)
08-28-2006 1:57 AM
Reply to: Message 216 by nwr
08-28-2006 1:51 AM


You are now off topic
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 216 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 1:51 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 219 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 2:06 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 220 of 284 (344155)
08-28-2006 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by nwr
08-28-2006 2:06 AM


Re: I was right on topic
He answered you sufficiently in the context of the topic of this thread,
No. He gave a vague handwaving response which simply evaded the question.
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.
You are raising another topic that has been discussed on many other threads, about how the various animals got dispersed throughout the earth.
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.
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 219 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 2:06 AM nwr has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by NosyNed, posted 08-28-2006 2:44 AM Faith has not replied
 Message 233 by nwr, posted 08-28-2006 8:17 AM Faith has not replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 224 of 284 (344175)
08-28-2006 3:22 AM
Reply to: Message 223 by RickJB
08-28-2006 3:03 AM


Re: Response please
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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 223 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:03 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:33 AM Faith has replied

  
Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 227 of 284 (344196)
08-28-2006 4:21 AM
Reply to: Message 226 by RickJB
08-28-2006 3:33 AM


Re: Response please
This thread has been a consistent working out of the Biblical creationist model by both MJ and me. It is a coherent logical model in which space unicorns have no part.
I have been pondering trying to put together in one list the elements of the creationist model up against the evolutionist model. It's hard to come up with them in isolation I've found, but I may yet do it.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 226 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 3:33 AM RickJB has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by RickJB, posted 08-28-2006 4:32 AM Faith has replied
 Message 277 by Hawks, posted 08-29-2006 7:29 PM Faith has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024