MACROevolution vs MICROevolution - what is it?

You can create a link to a message by entering "[msg=580]". If you do that then you'll get this link to message 580: Message 580.By the was, there's a rule in the Forum Guidelines that sort of requests you not compose messages consisting of little more than a link:

5. Bare links with no supporting discussion should be avoided. Make the argument in your own words and use links as supporting references.

It is also often suggested that you reexplain arguments rather than referencing previous messages that weren't understood the first time they were read.--Percy

Hi DOCJ and welcome to the fray, I see you are having fun with faith, one of our stalwart creationists. as you are new, here are some posting tips:type [qs]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: and you can type [qs=RAZD]quotes are easy[/qs] and it becomes: or type [quote]quotes are easy[/quote] and it becomes:

quote:

---

quotes are easy

---

also check out (help) links on any formatting questions when in the reply window.For other formatting tips see Posting Tips
For a quick overview see EvC Forum Primer
If you have problems with replies see Report Discussion Problems Here 3.0Enjoy

When stuff you say catches my eye and I have a thought about it I'll respond. That's what happened here: Although I do focus quite a bit on such small populations I claim the same trend exists in larger daughter populations, it just takes more time for the effects to be worked through, and when the daughter population is large enough it also has to be understood that the same kinds of changes are going to occur in the parent population as well because its gene frequencies will also have changed quite a bit.Also the most important thing in my scenario is the initial random selection of the founders of the daughter population, which you don't pay much attention to. It's that original founding number that determines the new gene frequencies that determine the traits in the new population and what has to be lost to bring them about. I've been claiming that it only takes a few generations too even in a wild population. I don't think it took all those thirty plus years to develop the Pod Mrcaru lizards for instance. I don't attribute changing allele frequencies to isolation and homogenization; I attribute one new set of allele frequencies to the number of individuals in the founders of a daughter population. Isolation is what is necessary to making sure the new gene frequencies are the only source of the traits in the new population. Homogenization is the result of the multiple sexual recombinations from generation to generation that eventually blend all those traits together for a distinctive identifiable character to the new population as a whole.Since you are not describing these things as I describe them I have no reason to think anything you say has anything to do with my argument.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Although I occasionally mention that I think the bottlenecked cheetah and elephant seal constitute genuine species, I avoid making my case from such a small founding number because they are considered to be different from species because of the bottleneck. That makes no sense, I don't think it's true, but I don't want to get into a fight about. Perhaps you can get away with it because you're talking about plants. I don't see how the number of offspring relates to the number of daughter populations. I haven't yet been able to understand enough of your argument to have any idea how long it takes RIL to produce anything. In the case of my scenario daughter populations develop a lot faster than the ToE supposes, in however many generations it takes from founding to homogenization, and if the founding number is as small as yours that should be a very very few years, five? ten?

thx

Got it, thx!

I did jump into the GAME at post 395. I will try to make sure I know what is being said by reading all bazillion pages.....

from prev Message 396: What? Where did you get that from? I presume you're reading the word "ancestral" or "groups of living organisms;" from the religion of evolutionist? I just read those from the neutral perspective, that it is referencing only human ancestry. I do try minimally to be neutral prior to picking a side. Edited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : err

You can't have it both ways. If your definition includes:"Groups of living organisms belong in the samecreated "kind" if they have descended from the same ancestral genepool."Then all of the primates are of the same "kind."

I disagree that I am having it "both ways". I am interpreting it as it is intended. The evolutionist religion is interpreting it that those two different species are the same kind. You have to PROVE not theorize that apes and humans are from the same ancestral gene pool. At this point it just leaves it open that they are possibly the same kind. And that is perfectly acceptable if it is the truth. At this time I have no reason to believe it.Edited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : errEdited by DOCJ, : err

If you follow your definition, all primates are of the same kind.(That's one of the problems with creation "science." There is no internal consistency--things get changed and stretched to conform to scripture no matter what the evidence shows.)

I disagree There is Science that's it.Edited by DOCJ, : Err

Disagree all you want--you presented a definition of "kind" which, if followed, includes all primates within the same kind. If you don't like that, get a better definition.But the problem is you need a definition that will fit scripture, have few "kinds" on the ark (to avoid overcrowding), and will accommodate the massive speciation since the end of the flood around 4350 years ago.And yes, there is only one science. Creation "science" is a fraud designed to get around a Supreme Court decision and fool a few school boards. In practice it is the exact opposite of real science as it must conform to scripture no matter what, while real science follows the evidence where it leads and often shows scripture to be wrong.

I disagree with you. Science is a tool. Science does not endorse anti creationism. The evolutionist religion endorses anti creationism. Further, I have noted kind refers to a population of organisms not a community of organisms.FYI: I don't need terms like macro-evolution or creation-science. I just read Genesis and it is clear. And the translators have done a great job of looking at what Moses wrote, and taking what the definitions mean, and providing that data. And if you want to argue the flood, etc we can do that in the proper thread.What you do with it, is up to you.God bless you. Edited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : ErrEdited by DOCJ, : Err

Curiously I have felt that the way "kind" is used is most similar to "clades" rather than trying to use species and other taxonomic levels (which are becoming less useful as more speciation occurs -- and then "species" become "genus" becomes "family" ... ) -- new species are always members of the parent clade.

quote:

---

A Clade (from Ancient Greek: κλάδος, klados, "branch") is a group of organisms that consists of a common ancestor and all its lineal descendants, and represents a single "branch" on the "tree of life".[1]

​

The common ancestor may be an individual, a population, a species (extinct or extant), and so on right up to a kingdom. Clades are nested, one in another, as each branch in turn splits into smaller branches. These splits reflect evolutionary history as populations diverged and evolved independently. Clades are termed monophyletic (Greek: "one clan") groups.

​

Over the last few decades, the cladistic approach has revolutionized biological classification and revealed surprising evolutionary relationships among organisms.[2] Increasingly, taxonomists try to avoid naming taxa that are not clades; that is, taxa that are not monophyletic.

Cladogram (family tree) of a biological group, showing the last common ancestor of the composite tree, which is the vertical line 'trunk' (stem) at the bottom, with all descendant branches shown above. The blue and red subgroups (at left and right) are clades, or monophyletic (complete) groups; each shows its common ancestor 'stem' at the bottom of the subgroup 'branch'. The green subgroup is not a clade; it is a paraphyletic group, which is incomplete here because it excludes the blue branch even though it is also descended from the common ancestor stem at the bottom of the green branch. The green subgroup together with the blue one forms a clade again.

---

ummm ... what's the "religion of evolutionist?" You may think you are but, methinks, your bias betrays you.How would you draw a cladogram of chimps and humans?Enjoy