Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

So if I say off the top of my head that it is "likely" that humans evolved from space unicorns, is that a good hypothesis?Oh, and what creationist model are you talking about? The one that defies all attempts at definition?Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

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.

It is very odd that anyone would raise a question about this. What explanation can there be for such taxonomically isolated creatures other than that their predecessors and cousins on the taxonomic tree have become extinct?

Okay, so if you have a hypothesis then you should also have some means of demonstrating it.Show us the evidence that supports your model. Until that time your (and MJ's) YEC assertions will remain as baseless as my space unicorn hypothesis.

We are offering an alternative explanatory framework for the SAME information the ToE uses. Logic and coherence is a lot to offer in terms of evidence. The ToE is just as baseless as anything we've said. It's just another explanatory system for the same stuff.

Ah, but you seem to forget that there is much more work to be done! Your hypothesis has to work on multiple levels.You have yet to show how such change could have happened over only 4000 years. You have yet to show how the animals found their way to that part of the world in the first place. You have yet to define a "kind" that might have given rise to the species in question.

There is no evidence in biology or paleontology for hypermacroevolution, therefore the ToE rejects it. There is no evidence in geology for a global flood, therefore the ToE rejects it.And you say you're using the same evidence? Don't make me laugh!

There is nothing in his answer that could ever be checked against the evidence even if we had complete information about the past.

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..

Hi MJ,I don't want this post to be part of a pile-on, but I am hoping a new thread can be originated to discuss the idea you have mentioned several times in this thread. I think it could be a very interesting discussion. This idea is quite congruent with evolutionary thought on the subject. The vast majority of species that have ever existed on the planet are extinct. We have a number of lineages that are represented by one or at best a very few species today, that were clearly more numerous in the past. If you could identify a group of obviously related organisms in the fossil record, using your bauplan or whatever other criteria you choose, you might be able to show the diversity bulge that this scenario you propose would require (i.e., original kind => diversity of related sub-kinds (or whatever term you use) => single modern remnant). It might be a very good way to show empirical support for your concept. Have you uncovered any examples of this?

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.

I'm sure both of us have a good idea of what's involved, he probably more than I but I've done a fair amount of research. How many is not necessarily relevant to the current discussion. When it's relevant I'll discuss it. It postulates their supposed relationship. The rest is knowledge available to evolutionist and creationist alike. What do you mean "still?" We are just beginning to put together a new idea and we use some obvious examples for a start. I've discussed tectonic theory on many other threads. This is not a thread about tectonic theory. I'm aware of the areas of difficulty. Aw, thank you. So sweet. What this has to do with the attempt to put together a broad objection to the ToE is beyond me. Yeah, I know it looks like major chutzpah but it's not as if I'm alone. Creationists have been studying this stuff for decades. I've been posting here a lot longer than you have, Archie. Well then we've got the basics. First you say we're taking on more than we can chew and more than anyone should dare have the effrontery to attempt, and then you complain that we are just at the beginning. Why do you assume I know so little? How far back in my posts have you bothered to read? I don't think you have a clue what we're trying to do.Cheers.

Man, that makes no sense. How can two or three cats have stupendous genetic richness, given that each cat can have at most two different alleles of any given gene? (being diploid organisms and all)I’m sure you understand the concept of a population bottleneck (Given what you stated about cheetahs). What makes you think hat this bottlenecking wouldn't apply to the Noah's ark?

We have to assume more genes in the earlier varieties of the Kind that were on the ark, a bigger genome. We have to assume that Noah and his family of three sons and their wives had the genetic capacity to be the progenitors of everybody on earth, all the Semites and the Africans and the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians and the native populations of the Americas. Implies a large genetic ability no longer seen. How this was shown in the genome we don't know.

quote:

---

We have to assume more genes in the earlier varieties of the Kind that were on the ark, a bigger genome.

---

Why?

quote:

---

We have to assume that Noah and his family of three sons and their wives had the genetic capacity to be the progenitors of everybody on earth, all the Semites and the Africans and the Europeans and the Chinese and the Indians and the native populations of the Americas.

---

Why?Why do we need to ASSUME any of those things? I thought you were attempted to come up with an explanation based in science? What evidence do you wish to present that supports those claims?