"Macro" vs "Micro" genetic "kind" mechanism?

Black,This: Is entirely different from your previous post, and totally irrelevant to the topic.This: Message 235
Is different from your original message 235 (posted 02*25*2009 02:41 AM and replied to on 02*25*2009 07:34 AM): It appears that my last reply was wasted on you. I also note that you still have not addressed what you think "macroevolution" involves, so if you want to continue a debate here, this is your homework assignment:To reply to this thread, and be on topic, define what you think "macroevolution" involves.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : post times and dates added

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Hi.I've just browsed the last pages of this thread, regretting not being able to come more often on the forum. But i simply fell in love with this very funny but still relatively useful link infidel posted:
microevolution = macroevolution + time Thank you infidel, though it may never be an effective tool to make creationist understand what "overtime" means, we can try using it, just in case we're tired of words, and accused of simplicism or naiveness.Edited by olivortex, : No reason given.

That's my question. If there are no limits, then why are there no "sliding scale" series at present?Why is life all settled in niches instead of being so segregated? If Darwin was correct, there would be no NEED for a fossil record. There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.And I don't really mean one. I mean one under every rock. You'd be stepping on all kinds of transitional forms. You'd have a scaled "one" for breakfast and a feathered "one" for dinner. We'd all learn about "Ring Species" cause they'd be all around us, rings of every size and shape. There'd be ring species in our back yard and others that are strung global. Microbiology would be an endless series of evolutionary rings. Kind of obvious, when you think about it for 30 seconds. Instead there are 2 or 3 limited examples set on stages with the horns sounding triumphant!Edited by -Sky-, : No reason given.

quote:

---

If Darwin was correct, there would be no NEED for a fossil record. There would be AT LEAST ONE complete living series of transitional forms.

---

Please explain exactly why you believe this is a necessary consequence of Darwinian evolution, because nobody who studies it seems to agree with you, and I'd like to tell them why they are wrong.

---

For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack ObamaWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Start with a population that gets divided in half. Since they now go their separate ways they can diverge from each other genetically. As each changes with time they become different/distinct until they no longer can interbreed etc.
So why aren't there existing variations between them? Why does the ToE predict that there should be?The sliding scale occurs over time not over space, with the exception of ring species which do both.
There is no connection between the two groups that requires what you demand.Take the original population and divide into 10 groups. Isolate them. Now we would expect them to become equally divergent one from another, not a gradual gradation from one extreme to another between them.Is this your thought and objection or something you read w/o thinking about it in creationist literature?

An example of this is how easily artificial selection can take a population, say of wolves, and through selection and isolation develop breeds, in this case of dogs, where the different breeds are quite distinctive, and none of the traits of the various breeds exist within the population of wolf traits: As long as each breed remains reproductively isolated there will be no mixing of genes and thus no intermediates. Where interbreeding does occur (mutts) you see an absorption of the extreme variations of the breeds back into a generic "mutt" dog mixture, and a loss of the more deleterious forms and less viable forms through natural selection.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •

Although you are trying to imply that Darwin is wrong about speciation by connecting what he says to an absurd reduction (of your creation) of his ideas; perhaps surprisingly to you, you have not stated a case strong enough, that is absurd enough as to be false, to make what Darwin (and other biologists) posit impossible or untrue. I could imagine some weird place (a highly controlled robot planet zoo, for instance) that could actually accommodate the absurdities you give as examples. Nothing would have to break any physical laws.The problem though is that our real world of today and the past isn't really set up at the foundation to support the kind of situation you describe. Basically your scenario can be summed up by asking the rhetorical question, "Why don't we find a series of losers in niches, occupying places that would have otherwise gone to winners?"What do you think happens to animals that are not really making it? Do they stay around to be observed for thousands or millions of years?

You are going to have to define what you mean here by "sliding scale" versus what actual biological evolution shows. Why is life all settled in niches instead of being so settled in niches? You don't make sense. Really? Have you read Darwin, and why he said - predicts - that there would be no living examples of transitional series? It's called natural selection, where the better fit forms squeeze out the old less fit forms. Ring species would be one example, the effects you can get by selective breeding and reproductive isolation would be another example. The whole diversity of life into all the various niches is another example -- the complete example of species forming nested hierarchies of traits as they blend from one environment into another. Except that evolution is a process that occurs over generations, not mealtimes:Evolution is the change in hereditary traits in populations from generation to generation.It does not occur in individuals, as each individual organism develops according the the genetic pattern it has inherited. And the fact that there aren't, adequately demonstrates that your claim that there should be is false. Good. Now the question is, do you want to see whether it is your understanding that is false or evolution?First off, we should define what is meant by "transitional" species or forms between species.I'll go first:A transitional species is one that shows traits intermediate between ancestral populations and more modern ones. They share some traits with all populations, some traits only with ancestral form and some traits only with the derived modern form/s.Thus transitional species show the hereditary lineage from the original form through the intermediate form/s to the to the final form, as new traits are acquired that increase fitness, and old traits are discarded that no longer assist fitness.Next we can ask why the intermediates aren't as viable as the later forms: Evolution and Natural Selection

quote:

---

Stabilizing, Directional, and Diversifying Selection

​

Under stabilizing selection, extreme varieties from both ends of the frequency distribution are eliminated.

​

Under directional selection, individuals at one end of the distribution of beak sizes do especially well, and so the frequency distribution of the trait in the subsequent generation is shifted from where it was in the parental generation (see Figure 6b).

​

Under diversifying (disruptive) selection, both extremes are favored at the expense of intermediate varieties (see Figure 6c).

---

Note that in every case selection favor one set of traits over others, thus you do not get an ever increasing variety of traits within a species.Your turn.Enjoy.Edited by RAZD, : ,Edited by RAZD, : clarityEdited by RAZD, : more clarity

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

---

• • • Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click) • • •