|
Author
|
Topic: Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
Message 25 of 284 (343614)
08-26-2006 2:01 PM
|
Reply to: Message 23 by anglagard
08-26-2006 1:49 PM
|
|
Re: Cat Kind
Are you saying that lions and housecats came from the same primordial archtype in less than 1500 years? I think the Romans had visual representations of each 2000 years ago showing such superhypermicroevolution had already suceeded in seperating the two species quite markedly. Also, didn't the Egyptians not only visually represent but also mummify cats, indicating that the archtype cat would have been much closer to the common housecat? Actually we have Egyptian art that depicts both the housecat and the lion going back to at last 2000BCE. That means that if the alleged flood for which there is no evidence happened about 4500 years ago, all of the evolution from some cat kind into Lions and Tigers and Kitties Oh My had to happen in about 500 years.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 23 by anglagard, posted 08-26-2006 1:49 PM | | anglagard has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 30 of 284 (343620)
08-26-2006 2:11 PM
|
Reply to: Message 29 by Faith
08-26-2006 2:08 PM
|
|
Re: Cat Kind
The original cat had enormous potential for the breeding of everything now seen; but today's cats are the end product of the playing out of those potentials, and their potentials, while still apparently large enough to produce new varieties, are greatly reduced from the original. Evidence for that assertion is found where Faith? You need to provide some genetic support for that.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 29 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 2:08 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 39 of 284 (343643)
08-26-2006 2:50 PM
|
Reply to: Message 35 by Faith
08-26-2006 2:29 PM
|
|
Re: Cat Kind
No, because the genome would still have been huge by comparison with today's. And where is the evidence that supports this alleged huge genome?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 35 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 2:29 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 46 of 284 (343655)
08-26-2006 3:08 PM
|
Reply to: Message 40 by Faith
08-26-2006 2:56 PM
|
|
Re: Cat Kind
However, the genome being so large and all that, alleles for many of the same developments could easily still have been present in the genome of whatever cat type was on the ark. And the evidence for that large genome is found where Faith?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 40 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 2:56 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 82 of 284 (343711)
08-26-2006 5:00 PM
|
Reply to: Message 79 by kuresu
08-26-2006 4:54 PM
|
|
the Cheetah is important though
It is the fact that we can see that genetic signature in the Cheetah that helps refute the nonsense of the floodists. If the flood happened we would see exactly the same type signature in EVERY critter, every animal, every plant and all pointing to the same event. It just ain't been found. Frankly, the Cheetah is just another nail in the coffin of ID, YEC and Biblical Creationism.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 79 by kuresu, posted 08-26-2006 4:54 PM | | kuresu has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: the Cheetah is important though
If the Great Wetting That No One Noticed actually happened there should be a genetic marker in every critter showing a great bottleneck at about 4500 years ago. That signature would be in every critter, every plant that exists today.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 84 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 5:06 PM | | mjfloresta has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: the Cheetah is important though
Please explain this genetic marker or signature that you're looking for... Can't explain it since so far it doesn't seem to exist. But just as we can see a genetic bottleneck in Cheetahs, in Humans (several in humans) and in many other species, if The Great Wetting That Never Happened had actually happened, there would be an indicator that everything, plant, animal, whatever is descended from some small population (a bottleneck) that happened about 4500 years ago. This is just another nail in the coffin of the flood myth as reality. It just never happened.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 86 by mjfloresta, posted 08-26-2006 5:16 PM | | mjfloresta has not replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 114 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 8:53 PM | | jar has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Kinds, Species & Fertilizer
Remember horse is a clean kind. So make that 7 pair of each.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 116 of 284 (343780)
08-26-2006 9:09 PM
|
Reply to: Message 114 by Faith
08-26-2006 8:53 PM
|
|
Re: the Cheetah is important though
The cheetah's bottleneck was probably fairly recent (contrary to some evo guesses), after the animal was already genetically defined, leaving it with very little genetic variability. The bottleneck of the Flood killed a lot of DNA, though, and I would say if you want evidence look at the junk DNA. I think you may not understand how serious a problem this is for folk that believe in the "Great Wetting No One Noticed Particularly The Egyptians Who Kept Building Right Through The Whole Thing" since it would not be something hidden or hard to spot. It would stand out like a stoplight, flashing at everyone saying LOOK AT THIS. Regardless, it is things like this that the Biblical Creationists will need to provide before anyone is going to even give it a second thought. If and when the ID, YEC, Biblical Creationists come up with some evidence and models that explain things better than those current there is just no reason to bother with them.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 114 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 8:53 PM | | Faith has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 122 by Faith, posted 08-26-2006 9:50 PM | | jar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 181 of 284 (343943)
08-27-2006 12:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 137 by Faith
08-27-2006 1:37 AM
|
|
Re: all-purpose Flood explanation
And yes, there is going to be some attrition as creationists of weak faith and training get seduced to evolutionism. Funny how that happens. LOL It's amazing what even a short exposure to reality can do. We see that here all the time, Biblical Creationists come in to set the record straight and over time come to realize that the Biblical Creation position is totally bankrupt and so toss it on the trash heap. The key thing is that the YECs and IDists and Biblical Creationists never put forward a model that stands up to examination. For example, in the issue of Micro to Macro, the Biblical Creationists need to explain one simple thing. If everyday I put change in a pile, what limits how much money that pile might grow into?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 137 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 1:37 AM | | Faith has replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 183 of 284 (343950)
08-27-2006 12:19 PM
|
Reply to: Message 182 by Faith
08-27-2006 12:14 PM
|
|
Re: all-purpose Flood explanation
So you assert. Can you anser the question posed in Message 181?
If everyday I put change in a pile, what limits how much money that pile might grow into?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 182 by Faith, posted 08-27-2006 12:14 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 185 of 284 (343954)
08-27-2006 12:33 PM
|
Reply to: Message 184 by ringo
08-27-2006 12:21 PM
|
|
Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
Yeah, it is pretty much just a game. As I pointed out in Message 161, any attempt like what Faith is proposing can NEVER be science. They begin with the absolute that man must stay in a separate "Kind" from chimp and that any "Kind" mentioned in the Bible must also be a base. Until they can approach things with the understanding that if man and chimp turn out to be that same kind they will accept it, there can never be any hope of them doing science. Science means always being ready to admit that what you know is right was wrong.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 184 by ringo, posted 08-27-2006 12:21 PM | | ringo has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
Re: Definitions, please! - 'body plan' and 'kind'
And is Faith ready to agree that man is only of the simian kind, Pan sapiens sapiens?
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 207 by kuresu, posted 08-28-2006 12:06 AM | | jar has not replied |
|
jar
Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: 04-20-2004
|
|
|
Message 244 of 284 (344313)
08-28-2006 2:14 PM
|
Reply to: Message 241 by Faith
08-28-2006 2:00 PM
|
|
Why Biblical Creationism is doomed from the start
The science will come. We start from what we know and we expect the needed scientific explanations to follow. And that is exactly why you are doomed to fail.
Aslan is not a Tame Lion
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 241 by Faith, posted 08-28-2006 2:00 PM | | Faith has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2