Hypermacroevolution? Hypermicroevolution

I can see a "dog-kind" pair on the ark "microevolving" into all the dog breeds we see today.
No problem with that.What about elephants? Do you propose an "elephant-kind" pair on the ark which "microevolved" into African and Indian elephants?What about horses? Do you propose a "horse-kind" pair on the ark that "microevolved" into horses, donkeys, zebras, etc?What about cats? Do you propose a "cat-kind" pair on the ark that "microevolved" into lions, tigers, leopards, housecats, etc?If so, your "hundreds of years or less" timescale seems a trifle scant.

So, how much time?The whole rationale behind the invention of "hyperevolution" - whether "micro" or "macro" - was to jam the changes into the 4500-odd-year timescale. All you've said is that dog breeds can proliferate on that timescale. You've done nothing to show that the other "kinds" could do the same.Edited by Ringo, : Punktuation.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The operative word there is "minute".Yes, we can observe the change from "dog-kind" to poodle or Dalmatian in a few hundred years. That's because the difference between a poodle and a Dalmatian is minute.The difference between a lion and a housecat is more significant. We don't see people breeding "cat-kind" into lion, tiger, etc. in a few hundred years, do we?The minuteness of the generation-to-generation changes requires many many generations for many variations (i.e. species) to appear. If you try to jam all the changes into a few generations, you are proposing much larger changes than Darwin ever imagined.So, where's the evidence for the "macro" changes needed for your "micro"evolution?Edited by Ringo, : Spellin.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I'm curious: It sounds like you're saying the supposed hyperevolution started in Adam's time and continued through Noah's time, tapering off to almost nothing in the present?If so, it sounds like an exponential decrease in "potential" rather than a linear one. Wouldn't most of the changes already have occured by Noah's time - i.e. wouldn't there still have been waaaay too many animals to fit on the ark?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Once again, the difference between a lion and a housecat is much greater than the difference between a poodle and a Dalmatian. Therefore, many more generations would be required.If I can walk to the corner store, I can walk to New York - but it is thousands of times farther to New York. Of necessity, my steps must be larger or there must be more of them.You are proposing that I walk to New York in the same time I can walk to the corner store. Either my legs must move impossibly fast or they must take impossibly large steps.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

You miss my point. Or did I throw it in the wrong direction? If each "kind" started out with a huge overstuffed genome, the proliferation of species should have been greater before Noah than it was after. I'm guessing at least 80% of the present species would have already existed in Noah's time.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Well, my first clue was that lions and housecats can't interbreed, lions and tigers produce infertile hybrids, etc. Which is irrelevant, since lions and housecats and tigers are not just different breeds. Again, there is no such "implication" - only your assertion. You didn't have to say it. It's inherent in your argument.There is only a fixed amount of time available for your scenario - from the time of the flood until the present. Generations do happen at a more-or-less fixed rate for each species. There are only so many generations for your scenario to occur.Edited by Ringo, : Re-prepositioning.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

I would have to call that a hideous perversion of what the Bible says.It is clear that no animal became extinct due to the flood.
Your notion of "varieties" becoming extinct is pure fiction.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

It isn't exactly "my" classification system. It goes back to Linneaus. It is irrelevant. You can't compare a dog-to-dog timeframe with a cat-kind-to-lion timeframe.You can't use the my-house-to-the-corner-store timeframe to establish a my-house-to-New-York timeframe. And I have explicitly stated that you do not have greater lengths of time. The whole point of your scenario is to jam too many generations into time you do not have. Do the math.Take hypothetical "kind" E. Let's say a generation is ten years. Let's say we have two thousand years after the flood for proliferation to occur. That's two hundred generations. With me so far?Now, what you need to do is show how "kind" E can become species A and species I in two hundred generations.Edited by Ringo, : Alleviated hyphen shortage.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

So why was there hyperevolution after the flood for all the "kinds" except humans?The "whole branches" of the human race were still human. But the "animal branches" that you so deftly handwave away were not anything that survives today, were they?The "problem" is that your scenario involves wiping out vast numbers of creatures - and nothing like them would ever exist again. That is nothing like what the Bible says.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Just between you and me, I think Biblically "kind" is more like "breed" or "variety".
If God told Noah to take two of each "kind" of cattle, He undoubtedly meant milk cows and beef cows as different "kinds".

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

But we're not talking about "races" or "varieties" It's still all the human race.We're talking about cat-kind becoming lions and tigers and housecats and leopards and lynxes and bobcats and cheetahs.... Those are much greater "variations". So you're saying that some of the "races" that were wiped out by the flood might have "come back", as it were, from the vast repository of "genetic potential"?(See, I would have thought that that would have been a good "Design". Cram in so much "genetic potential" that no single species could ever go extinct. It would always "vary back into existence" from another branch of its "kind". Your "dwindling potential" scenario seems to be a poorer design than mine. ) Just to clarify: Are you saying that those examples were wiped out by the flood?

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

Sounds like backwards thinking to me. You've decided that all cat-like animals are one "kind" and all dog-like animals are a different "kind". Now you want to make up definitions that will back up your conclusion.It would make more sense to define the categories first, and then put each animal into the appropriate category.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

To a YEC, "kinds" are more like "The set of common ancestors that would fit on the ark."If there was room for a separate "lion-kind" and "tiger-kind", they'd have them. After all, raven-kind and dove-kind are explicitly mentioned, and they're not very different in "body plan", are they?
(Nor do they seem to have evolved much since the flood.)Once they figure out how many kinds they have room for, they adjust the rate of evolution to fit the time alloted.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC

The problem is that most creationists (not you) want their tripe to be taught in schools as science. So it certainly is necessary for your premises to meet with the approval of real science.

---

Help scientific research in your spare time. No cost. No obligation.
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC