Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Does microevolution logically include macroevolution?
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 138 of 195 (247265)
09-29-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 136 by Springer
09-29-2005 10:53 AM


Re: microevolution vs macroevolutoin
The notion that the existence of micro-evolution over short periods of time provides evidence of macroevolution over long periods of time is a result of completely falacious reasoning
Since I don't see the flaw in the reasoning perhaps you can point it out?
The selective breeding "experiments" you discuss are in time frames that only allow the selection part of evolution, they leave out almost all possibility of mutation. Therefore they are not a demonstration of a macroevolution barrier.
(You might want to check out what many creationists say too. Just in case you think new species and genera can't arise. Many of them do, if you disagree with them you might explain why that you do.)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 136 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 10:53 AM Springer has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 140 of 195 (247273)
09-29-2005 11:14 AM
Reply to: Message 139 by Springer
09-29-2005 11:09 AM


Gene pools
However, the mechanism of change between, say, a dog and an otter require changing to a different gene pool, and the ToE offers no evidence that this is biologically possible.
Since a closed gene pool is a biological species and we have seen species arise there IS evidence that this is biologically possible.
We also see a range of species between various separate gene pools (as they are now). There IS evidence that this occured.
I suggest that you learn before you type. You don't know enough about the subject matter to make the assertions you are making.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 139 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:09 AM Springer has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 141 by Springer, posted 09-29-2005 11:29 AM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 190 of 195 (282135)
01-28-2006 10:55 AM
Reply to: Message 189 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 10:24 AM


Dog Interbreeding
I think it is likely that you are wrong on the dogs in this case Crash. The way to make a better judgement of it would be to look at species that have been separated for a bit more than 25,000 years and see if they can still interbreed and to what extent.
I think, for example, that tigers and lions have been separated for far, far longer (guessing I would say for between 10 and 100 times longer) but there is still some residual ability to interbreed.
My guess is that if we looked at a few such examples we would expect that in a great number of cases mammals separated by only 25,000 years would still be able to interbreed perhaps enough to be called the same species.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 10:24 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 12:44 PM NosyNed has replied
 Message 193 by Coragyps, posted 01-28-2006 4:41 PM NosyNed has not replied

  
NosyNed
Member
Posts: 8996
From: Canada
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 192 of 195 (282164)
01-28-2006 1:49 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
01-28-2006 12:44 PM


Re: Dog Interbreeding
I was giving T's and L's as only one example that I think I can be safe in saying have been separated by a LOT more than 25,000 years and a lot more than 10,000 generations.
Since there are, as you point out, a lot of things which can affect the outcome we'd have to look at a bunch of cases. We know that a single generation can be enough to draw a firm line even though that is rare. We have even had discussions about human chimp interbreeding (which might be just barely successful based on what we do know) which are separated by perhaps 500,000 generations.
All of this is guessing on my part. But you were guessing about dogs too. I'm just giving reasons why I would not be inclinded to accept your assertion too quickly.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 01-28-2006 12:44 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024