Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

Faith writes: It won't. Church and state and all that. But creationists can raise it themselves. They already have organizations that raise money, they already have organizations that claim to conduct creationist reasearch. There are plenty of pieces in place for a full-scale effort of this sort.How many expeditions have been funded to locate the ark? How much money gets raised for theme parks? How much money gets spent on court cases trying to get creationism into schools--where it always gets tossed out, in large part because of the poor evidence to support it?Time to go get that evidence, I'd say. Well, yes, there's always that.It's a big reason creation 'research' organizations stopped funding research. No guts, no glory.Edited by Archer Opterix, : Grammar.

---

Archer

If it's definitive, define it.Keep in mind your definition has to account for fossil pachyderms as well.

---

Archer

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

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

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

Faith writes: Again with 'evolutionist definitions'? You have been shown this characterization is not right. Still you say it. Well, if analyzing motives is the project: Your remarks about harassment are all in the service of feeling martyred, I would suppose.Demanding greater precision is fair game. For your definition to qualify as science it has to be precise--precise enough to be usable, precise enough to meet new situations.The people who raise legitimate questions now are showing you the questions a valid definition has to answer sooner or later. This is useful information, whether you welcome that information or not.You don't have to answer every question right away. But it would be foolish to ignore any. This is news you can use.Talk to any scientist who has been through the peer review process. You feel harassed and discouraged here? No points are awarded in peer review for pure motives. None are deduced for impure ones. Your work holds up or it doesn't. Professional scientists will tell you not much credit is awarded in their field for 'starting to define' anything. Put out a body of work that makes people rush to the lab to replicate your findings. Then you will know acknowledgment. Put out a body of work that can be replicated, and you will know appreciation.Until then, the absence of warm fuzzies seems fair enough. You don't acknowledge the value of the real information people give you. See what I mean?Edited by Archer Opterix, : Reworked sentence.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Faith writes: I applaud your interest in verifying a thesis by experiment--seriously--but this looks like one to save for later.You have a lot of matters to square away first. If your definition of 'Kind' proves to be genetically verifiable--as it will have to--there would be ways to determine these possibilities in the lab without causing inconvenience to actual simians or humans.(I do remember reading about some Stalin-era experiments in this area. If memory serves, the project suffered from a shortage of volunteers and inadequate technology; the results were inconclusive.)

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

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.

I'm sorry, Faith, but this is very, very far from being true.You clearly have no idea how much data the theory of evolution really accounts for. If you are going to get anywhere with this, you and MJ are going to have to educate yourselves on just how much you really do need to explain. There's a vast body of knowledge.You've said virtually nothing about extinct species. When you did, you suggested, outrageously, that one pair of critters 4,000 years ago could cover it genetically for the entire superorder Dinosauria. You have idea how very many organisms on this planet you have to account for--extinct and living, discovered and undiscovered.Evolution can account for them. It predicts their genetic structure, it tells us where to where to find their fossils, it tells us their relationship with other living creatures and with creatures long gone.You're still working on 'dog' and 'cat'.You and MJ have said nothing about Plate Tectonic theory. You seem not to be aware how vast an amount of phenomena that theory explains. You show no awareness that you are heading for a full-speed head-on collision with it.Your lack of awareness of how much present theories do--and thus how much you have given yourselves the task of improving upon--is almost touching in its naivete.To give you some perspective: People write doctoral theses about the tooth of one extinct mammal and it takes them several years to publish their findings as valid research.You have set yourself the task of overthrowing two major paradigmatic theories in natural history and explaining the entire history of life on this planet better than anyone has done before.And if you're reading this and thinking 'He's trying to discourage me,' guess again. I say have at it. Go for the gold.Just don't insult our intelligence or overestimate yours. Educate yourself. You have a very great deal to understand. Find out what it is. Not really. Logic and coherence are expected as basic requirements. To supply evidence you need more than that. Any science professional can tell you stories of plausible ideas that went 'pop' at the first touch of reality.I can make a case that the entire universe was brought into being last Thursday at 11:47 ex niholo by Hello Kitty. My idea is a model of logic, coherence, and self-consistency. And it's irrefutable. It really is.But Hello Kittyism is dead on arrival as science. Its perfect coherence and logic cannot save it.An important element of a theory's success is its ability to be tested and to function as a predictor of what to look next for new discoveries. In all of your comments I've not seen you once acknowledge the importance--even the existence-of this predictive ability a good theory demonstrates. But it's real.This predictive ability is something you are now obliged to consider. Any theory you propose has to have it. Any theory you want to take down has to be bettered as a predictive instrument by your own. No one is going to cut you slack on this point. You're taking on the heavyweights.Your comments confirm a suspicion I had as I've watched you and MJ send posts back and forth. You really do think inventing pretty explanations is all there is to this. You really do think that's all science does, and all you need to do. You do not know what you are talking about.Do youself a favor. Find out.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.