Macro and Micro Evolution

The interesting thing is that it does a figure 8 as can be seen in the video clips you linked. I had a red racer from the SW USA as a "pet" when I was a teenager (I gave it away when I came to Cornell) and I was going to write a paper on a method of holding this species that is nearly as fast as they come. Unlike some kinds that species does not like to remain motionless and will twist violently if one attempts to restrain it's "forward" motion. But I figureed out that one could "confuse" the snakes 'sense' of equilibrium REALATIVE TO EARTH (or gravity) if one simply moved the snakes body that was not moving in the form of a figure 8. This species with a black head is perfectly "content" to be in ones hands if its body is continually be shaped by the human in to the figure of eight. The flying snake does this on its own. I had pubilsehd a paper on prey handling in the water snake also relevant to isssues having to do with body shaping by snakes as it is generally not thought that snakes will indeed loop their body around prey even if they only do so in order to restrain the motion of something elese it might eat. Instead people think snakes have emotions. I have never felt this to be a possiblity. Gliding is really NOT all that remarkable among the lower vertebrates as many kinds do it. Frogs, Lizards, Snakes it IS somewhat of note that most of the gliding however is DONE in Malysia and tropics. Flying fish are "good at it" either. It is all in how you "expect" the motion to look. There is clearly a misperception here that St.Hillare rasied with respect to monotreme and other lower verts THAT IS NOT GENERALLY TAUGHT and there is a tendency to think that herpetology has not legit focus but this would be wrong.

good at it with respect to what? learning to move from water to land from land to air??perhaps I mis understood you instead. Please tell me what you meant by

quote:

---

(but it's not all that good at it)simley)""

---

in the post you linked the flying snake link to. Yes I did meam the fish were "not good at it" IN THE SENSE I WAS TRRING TO COMMUNICATE IN THE POST ( the snake's"" perspective" in terms of the factual issue that St. Hilliare rasied that did not go unnoticed by SJ GOULD.really I thought you said the "snake was not good at it" and now you seem to say an opposite? WHICH IS IT PLEASE??

That's fine. Then you may indeed be supporting against my explanation or simply you resorted to you own...that herpetology has not a true lineage basis which I assert is mistaken by not following out the perspective that I mentioned in that post which has nothing to do with me or humanity. Gould simply acknowledged an older contraryness but the motion of a flying fish would be like the lizard keratin (which is NOT in the forms such in snakes) having some motion and nothing about the coiling of the vertebrae which you judged. You also mentioned "squirrels" and it is that which threw up the "red flag" for me. You might know this if you thought about the ribs extending through the skin of salamanders and looking at how lizards glide. Meristic variation is rather hard to view in the sense of the biometry of squamate scalation as it seems to me comparison to fish requires. In the fish the same changes"" appear in D'ARcy Thompson transforms of fish body types not the points of tangent reference form subjectivity which insert fins indeed. I hope this clears up my not editing that post with the missing negative.

If thinking about flying out of water is not macroevolution then there only IS microevolution! What's harder than that? You started this thread not me. Last time you didnt understand me you thought what I said was too complicated but I cant make it more elementary than this.Herpetology IS really the taxa of focus when it comes to discussions of changes in Meso Evolution (between "micro and macro"). People really tend to substitute entemological species notions (for purely contigent historical reasons) often when discussing via "mutation" changes of higher categories but you avoided this so far by talking about mammals and fish etc. Blood can have iron or copper. This may mean nothing to you indeed but thinking about flying fish as evolving IS often a thought about macroevolution even for highschoolers.

Based on our interaction, actually rather lack of one, I introduced a difference of opnion among biologists (not any random posters) but now you ask why in the "first place."? Well, I guess then in this place you would have students find no necessity to read, follow nor take to heart as being in such place at first Bate's

quote:

---

"THE EVOLUTION OF MAJOR BODY TYPES Richard Goldschmidt (who lives in California) has maintained stoutly, in the face of almost universal disagreement from other biologists, that there are two very different kinds of evolution, micro-evolution and macro-evolution. The taxonomists with their subspecies and the geneticists with their large accumulations of slight mutations, are studying micro-evolution, which, he thinks, is essentially different from the large discontinuties that seperate genera, families and so forth. I have never understood his arguments, so I cant give a lucid explanation of them here. Goldschmidt's terminoglogy provides, though, a means of breaking up the remaining evolutionary carcass, especially if we add "mega-evolution"."p232 THE NATURE OF NATURAL HISTORY Princeton Press.

---

even if one KNEW that Gould wanted to leave open some room for using Goldschmidt in his last tome. That seems against my understanding of faciltating the next generation of students on the subject. If you think that evo-devo means* that organic types will all be explained by drug discovery company promoted genomics style protocols etc then you would have meant to put for instance cytogenetics ahead of biogeography and I do not hold in this place that opnion and that is why I would use Dobshansky's difference before fullfilling Gould's dream.I am fairly sure you are still not ready for me to try to explain again how creation model biology is needed BEFORE tests of vicariance vs dispersal in order to test for error of filiation to Croizat's term vicariism which recognizes both geographic and taxonmic splitting as found in any cladogram. You will have to appreciate baraminology as a logical grammetological adjunct AT LEAST to cladistics. I cant even get you to see the snakes perspective so I am not going to try with a primates' yet.If you do not think we need baraminology you will likely not realize the use of the FURTHER breaking up"" gained by use of the lexicology but perhaps I will explain to you in the future how I see the use of catastrophe theory for the phylogentic DIScontinutiy ( so as to get your PHYSICS opinion) but I am not going to unless I read people here are acutally favorable to peace and raising the level of discussion generally wich means acceptance not mere "faking" 'both sides.

Of course there WERE nose, dont be so stuck on me. Call me out if you must but dont MISS and KISS off what I said. You only gave me the color blue.There IS logic in Q,s post but because of the conclusion you seem to find this logic and not the one I also used. I was going to come on with a better tone but your sticking in for this without answering me even to say once more you didnt understand makes me cry wolf again. You are only trying to find tha creation is not to be a part of WHAT IT ALREADY IS.Q wrote

quote:

---

-What isn't immediately obvious (although it would be if you think about it), is that all these different hierarchies are simply larger groups of species. A genus is a bunch of species that are really closely related - sharing some traits, being different in others. Familes are a group of genera, etc. All these categories are simply names given to ever-larger groupings of related species - nothing more.

---

but this sufers the same fault of the current electronic versions of creationism. You refuse to recognize I am bringing something unique and differnt than is available anywhere else.The "further" father - and please DO UNDERSTAND THIS - is that even graninting Appolyons microevolution=speciation in fidelity to Qs not NOSY's logic the criticism is that the nested hierachy that NOSY Says immediately is good MISSED MY POINT!. Q may not have missed it but N did!!!! Nested hierarchies may only be physics or chemsitry. THIS IS NOT INCOHERENT BUT BROADER APPRECIATION of diversity over pluarlity.But as long as vicariance biogeography and cladistics is not able to determine this barrier if it is ecological or some physcio-chemical niche (and it can not and does not do this provided it does not even teach how taxonomic and geographic vicariism are for instance different carabid genitalia carcasses... the simpler could have been written for the high school curriculum but you, N, refused to try to draw this out) we can not DEDUCE what is obvious immediately to Q. But as this was in the context of a discussion on the basis of A's all is well except for N? N can induce this and did. He would be wrong even if B is wrong about nested heirarchies for even though I may be mistaken about truth (we need a full test of Wolfram's NeW kind of science at least before we can all know that) I am not off language or coherence OR Meds to know, write and apply Baraminology to the carabids of the Alps.MY point was MISSED and this is enough to PROOVE its theoretical reality.Darwin's position of gemmules comeing from finger nails was biology in his day but today we understand that process as wholly a matte of physcis and chemistry. I assume no one is going to calim nine inch nails had its' soul in its alpha and beta keratin. Q simply likely holds to some kind of organicism which I reject BIOLOGICALLY but this has nothing to do with the logic he suggested which is clear enough provided A is assumed. Now asume B. I dare you to look below the belly button.

you did!

I didn n0t. How come now that there are more admins there is a presumption that "we" are evos? I USE evolution in my work but that did not make me part of this "we". It is only as far as I can see becuase the difference as *seen* by the posting can be LISTED in the minority BEcAUSE it is easeir than dealing with every difference of majority. When I was actually threading my topic discussions I was able to use a "presumption" of a difference of opnion. It neigh appears that the balance against creation has actually made the net precense here a Summary of what was really groundless as far as I have seen. I cant get to the evolutionary content because the presumption substitutes for the often common reply to me. MrHambre told Dan that a lot of creation can get done in a week, well a lot of evolution can get done in a million years. Please admins figure out how to make this space per posters cycling cylce available else? well that is a good question that has nothing to do with logic but also has not as much a doo with biology either. One's lack is not luck in this case-Brad Steven McFall

welcome D,You have provided something here to comment on as Q and M did above. After your citing of Gould I was expecting to read "transmission and physiological genetics" as this pair is often instead thought to be nostaglic in some evolutionary discussions. I will comment later much as I have in the past when I asked Mammy (with respect to bacteria) if this is the strong or weak form. But as I need to "clean" up my own posts (on form-making) so it may be a time before I get back here. Taxonomy and Classification are not really the same thing and I am only guessing seeing some of the comments of Quetzal and Mammy that you may have over used the descriptive content which is an error I KNOW M has not done. Still it may be true that biology is coming out about a materialized concept of different levels of causation. My understanding is that there would need to be a LOT of population genetics done to show the different possibilites of such a hierachization and I have not seen this in the literature but I have not explictly looked for it either. My College Scholar Contract at Cornell was to investigate the nature of DOWNWARD causation (from higher levels of organization to lower)(hence my indeterminate response on the level of the bacteria being a level below that I had much of any experience with) so I would be most interested if you maintain a consistent point of view no matter what it is.