Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9161 total)
0 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,585 Year: 2,842/9,624 Month: 687/1,588 Week: 93/229 Day: 4/61 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
mjfloresta
Member (Idle past 5984 days)
Posts: 277
From: N.Y.
Joined: 06-08-2006


Message 1 of 2 (343465)
08-25-2006 11:49 PM


I've noticed a repeating theme from many ToEers, implying that YECers who believe in a Noah's Ark and Universal flood are necessitating hypermacroevolution, (a rate of evolution beyond that which is claimed by the ToE itself) which is found to be ironic since the same YECers would deny the possibility of macro-evolution in the first place...
I would like to point out that what would actually be required under a flood/ark framework is hypermicroevolution - a distinction which is vital to recognize.
Why is this distinction important? Because the two concepts are diametrically opposed.
Macroevolution suggests increase in complexity..such as the derivation of multicellularity from unicellularity..
Microevolution, on the other hand, simply refers to the diversification of a population due to variation of the genetic material (caused by recombination, genetic drift, chromosomal translocations, possibly (although I have my doubts) mutations)...
While Macroevolution claims the greatest potential for change, microevolution is the necessary mechanism in the case of the flood. Why so? Because if all of the kinds were present on the ark, the amount of variation necessary to result in today's species is relatively little, and well within the observed range of variation for a species, as I will show..
Genetic diversification of a population has been observed and studied extensively through the pratice of artificial selection and breeding. The amount of diversification achieved, for example, in the canis genus or further up the canine family, is remarkable yet similarity of body plan is evident.
The variation seen among the canis lupus familiaris (domestic dog) due to domestic breeding, while not perfectly analagous to the level of variation that would mark the diversification of the flood "kind" to the descendant species today, is nonetheless indicative of both the degree of variation inherent in higher order species (an ancestral or taxonomically higher animal) and the rapidity with which such variation can occur.
I mentioned that the variation seen within the dog species is not perfectly analagous to required flood scenario because the "kinds" that were on the ark, would likely be placed around, if not right at, the family level. Thus the descent from the kinds represents more variation and diversification than that currently seen in domestic breeding programs...
This notwithstanding, studying the effects of artificial selection is useful for the aforementioned applications..
So in sum, diversification (that is the potential diversification) of each Ark "kind" is supported by evidence from breeding - even if current breeding programs have only so far dealt with the species level.
What about timeframe? The diversification caused by artificial selection is seen to occur very rapidly - within the timeframe of a few generations. Certainly, the level of diversification required under the Flood "kind" scenario is greater than that of the species level, and therefore would require greater time. Again, the evidence from breeding suggests that such diversification from the "kind" to the species we see today, is very possible within a 5k - 6k timeframe...

AdminFaith
Inactive Member


Message 2 of 2 (343469)
08-26-2006 12:21 AM


Thread copied to the Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution thread in the Biological Evolution forum, this copy of the thread has been closed.

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024