Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

no. hybrids are not an example of macro evolution.
I was clarifying your misconception of the definition of the biological species concept. we have defined Kind in a slightly different way, making it far more encompassing than species. that's the point I was trying to get across. Not that a mule is an example of macro evolution. jeez.chickens
Animalia Chordata Aves Galliformes Phasianidae Gallus gallus.
Kingdom Phylum Class Order Family Genus species
Animalia Chordata Aves Galliformes Numididae
guinea fowl(abe: if too confusing, the chicken is on top, with it's full name, the fowl on bottom with as complete a name I found, and that line in the middle says what each name is in the Linnean classification system)we have a cross between to separate families. One between Phas. and Numid.
that automatically means different species in different genera.
Which is why I told you to pay attention to the list of hybrids in my post 140, which I linked in the one you responded to, which is causing this response.whether or not that interfamilial hybrid produces viable offspring is unknown to me, but they can, procreate.
just like a horse and a donkey can.Edited by kuresu, : No reason given.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

All the dog breeds are still very similar genetically, though they may look very different form each other. That's not the case when you compare similar species (like horses and donkeys). often times the two species don't even have the same number of cromossomes. As you pointed out, all these differences between closely related species would take time to acumulate. You can think whatever you want, it's a free country(world).

The criteria for speciation is the formation of a new species as the result of geographic, physiological, anatomical, or behavioral factors that prevent previously interbreeding populations from breeding with each other. That means that one subspecie branches off peripherally from the main population so that in the event the two come together again in a chance meeting, they will be different enough so as to be incapable of breeding with one another. But perhaps the reason why speciation is a bit of an ambiguous term is because there are four different types meaning different things to describe different events. Probably the most widely used is allopatric speciation that explains how any given sub-population can become isolated and develop new features. But this is a clear example of a microadaptive process, not macroevolution. So, I would like for someone to give clear examples of such a phenomena as macroevolution in nature. I mean, the inability to procreate should not be the sole reason for speciation. Case in point: A Great Dane and a Chihuahua may not be able to breed for anatomical reasons, but on the genetic level there should be no problem because they are both canine. I agree fully, which is why I mentioned mules in a previous post. Well, I think the term is misused just like the term 'evolution' is misused. Its crucial that these terms be clearly described and that there is a definate distinction made so the laymen won't be mislead to believe that because two finches have different colored beaks that it must somehow mean that the finch is also related to a nematode.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

...and just focus on the evolution parts, and figure out if evolution is happening and if there are examples of it.Then all you have to do is determine whether you think the small changes we can witness, can eventually accumulate into grander differences and explain the diversity of life. If you think that Geology is a load of crap and the earth is really young, then you probably can't imagine small changes we can witness would ever have produced the life we see today.If scientist witness a new species of bacteria emerging in a lab, is that enough evidence, or do bacteria not really count? What will you consider to be good enough evidence for either side to be convincing?

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.

And I would like for someone to give a clear explanation of what is macroevolution because up to now this term means nothing to me. I think you are missing the reason for taking reproductive viability as the criteria for speciation. It is not intended as a measure of how far apart genetically the two groups have become. The point is that once all reproduction between the two groups ceases, there will be no more gene flow between them and they will grow apart as different mutations acumulate over time. There have not been enough time for much genetic difference to acumulate between Chihuahuas and Great Danes. By the way, gene flow is still a possibility between them, eventhough they cannot mate direcly, because there are many intermediary breeds to bridge the gene flow gap, so you are right, they are both members of the same species.

I did consider it. Don't you think that if these gradations took place that the earth has maintained some evidence of such? There are over a million fossil remains housed in various museums and universities the world over. None of them have been able to link one specie to the next. All we ever see is well-established organisms in full formation, not in any kind of transitional limbo. Out of millions of expamples, what are the odds that not one of them would yield some fruit for the theory? So, what compelling reason is there to assume that macroevoultion exists when its never been witnessed and its never been recorded in the fossil record? There isn't anything crappy about Geology. What is crappy is how the usage of radiometric dating methods often employ circular reasoning. Its hard to say because there are no examples of such, therefore, its hard to imagine what it might look like. But, what seems reasonable is an organism that basically shares qualities with an entire population but has some unequivocal new features never seen before. For instance, Archaeopteryx is conceivably missing hundreds of links between avian and saurian. That is unless you think that rudimentary feathers, fully formed wings, different vascular, pulmonary, integumentary and digestive systems could be radically altered in one felled swoop of time. Then you have to consider why early Archeaopteryx benefited from his 'nubs' as his forelimbs were evolving into wings. What enhanced his survivability, rather than diminish his odds of selection? What prompted the changes to occur in the first place? On and on and on. Just saying, time + mutation + chance = evolution is too much brevity to entertain. That's as bad saying, "Godditit!" That's not enough. And neither explains anything.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Forgive me if this point has already been brought up in this thread. I've skimmed through it, and might have missed somethings.The main problem I see with your model is that it incorporates an intervening omnipotent supernatural creator. This creator created Earth ~6,000 years ago, created a world-wide flood somewhat later, resurrected someone dead 2,000 years ago, and performed quite a few more miracles. It would thus be fair to say that this creator is still active in the workings of this planet/universe.For the simple fact that this creator can do anything, literally any evidence you could possibly find would be consistent a "bible" hypothesis. Wherever you look, you will find supporting evidence, since god can do anything. But in science, the strength of a theory does not only rest on its supporting evidence, the existence of the theory in the first place requires it to be falsifiable. If every single piece of evidence can be in accordance with a theory, it is hardly falsifiable. So, I ask, how is your model falsifiable?Moreover, how could it be falsified to the point of it being rejected?

must we repeat that we have transitionals.
not species to species, but we have the major evolutionary developments.and you continue to mischaracterize what transitional means.
you seem to think it would mean that something would appear with half of something. that's not true.

---

All a man's knowledge comes from his experiences

That's good then, because nobody should be expecting to find anything in that transitional limbo (wherever that is). If all species are continuosly evolving then all fossils should be expected to be well-established fully formed organisms. I've never seen a good definition of macroevolution. I see no good reason to reject my definition that macroevolution is just a lot of microevolution put together, just as a thousand mile walk is just a lot of steps put together. I don't know a single instance of that. would you care to elaborate? How sure are you that that is the case? By the way, you didn't answer the question.

No, I'm not mischaracterizing or embellishing what any reasonable person would expect to see. I wouldn't expect to see plantman and goatboy, I expect to see a stepwise graduation from one tier to the next. I would expect there to be some spottyness in the fossil record, but surely there should be at least one series of genera that we can clearly identify going through a series of speciation. But its not. Its all based upon inferences. And inferences are fine so long as there is some level of corroboration. I see no such corroboration for any macroevolutionary process. Apparently I'm not alone. I share this kinship with IDers and evolutionists.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

Where this limbo would be where all animals are, which is everywhere. Theoretically, that sounds just wonderful and plausible. And there would be no way to account for that. Just like trying to watch your fingernails grow or watching your hair grow. You can't do it because the transitions are insensibly fine. Point taken. Here's the problem: When looking at the fossil record, there are hundreds of missiing links in between one specie to its supposed closest answer in the exact same way we find them today, which is completely separate-- so separate that one must wonder how they are ever related at all. If a dog became a bear or vice-versa, then clearly there should be some evidence. Concievably, there must have been thousands upon thousands of years of geologic record that has gone unaccounted for. Now, what are the odds that this phenomenon has happened over and over and over again? It doesn't add up. Yes, it sounds possible in theory, but the physical evidence doesn't support the assertion.

---

“It is in vain, O' man, that you seek within yourselves the cure for all your miseries. All your insight has led you to the knowledge that it is not in yourselves that you will discover the true and the good.” -Blaise Pascal

This definition of macroevolution better start coming sometime soon because I am starting to have trouble keeping my BS detector quiet.

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..

There are plenty of threads about transitional fossils, whales, humans, horses...and probably others...check 'em out.But I was actually thinking more along the changes we can observe in the lab or in the field today. If we see changes to a population, even very small ones, and these changes are heritable, do you consider that to be basic evolution? Forget micro- macro- garbage.Because if you accept that these changes, then all you need is a timeframe large enough, and that is why I mentioned geology in a previous post. Do you think the earth is only 10,000ish years old, or up in the billions? Geology, physics, and cosmology all seem to think the earth is pretty darn old. And billions of years could give a long enough timeframe for the most minute of changes to accumulate and eventually have significant results. So do bacteria count? Because I am pretty sure examples do exist and pretty much supply exactly what you want to see. A brand new characteristic that has never been seen before. But thats only if bacteria count.~clpMINI Edited by clpMINI, : No reason given.

---

I mean, this is America. Everybody loves seeing lesbians go at it, as long as they are both hot and not in a monogamous, legally sanctioned relationship.